members of a minority group and had been the subject of comment in the press (see paragraph 50 above), further contributing to their susceptibility to pressure brought to bear on them. 171. In all the circumstances, the Court considers that the questioning of Mr Ivanov and Mrs Ivanova by a representative or representatives of these same authorities, which led the applicants to deny in a sworn declaration that they had made any application to the Commission (see paragraph 51 above), amounted to a form of improper pressure in hindrance of the right of individual petition. It follows that there has been a breach of Article 25 § 1 of the Convention. iv. application of article 50 of the convention 172. The applicants asked for just satisfaction pursuant to Article 50 of the Convention, which states: “If the Court finds that a decision or a measure taken by a legal authority or any other authority of a High Contracting Party is completely or partially in conflict with the obligations arising from the ... Convention, and if the internal law of the said Party allows only partial reparation to be made for the consequences of this decision or measure, the decision of the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” A. Non-pecuniary damage 173. Mr Assenov claimed compensation for the harm caused to him by the many violations of his Convention rights. Mr Ivanov and Mrs Ivanova claimed non-pecuniary damages in respect of the pressure they were placed under by the authorities in breach of Article 25 § 1. 174. The Government submitted that no compensation should be awarded under Article 50. 175. The Court considers that, given the gravity and number of violations found in this case, compensation for non-pecuniary damage should be awarded to Mr Assenov, although it takes the view that the finding of a violation of Article 25 § 1 is adequate just satisfaction in respect of any non-pecuniary damage suffered by Mr Ivanov and Mrs Ivanova. Making an assessment on an equitable basis, it awards to Mr Assenov 6 million Bulgarian leva. B. Costs and expenses 176. The applicants claimed costs and expenses equivalent to approximately GBP 14,860 in respect of their Bulgarian representative and GBP 7,600 in respect of their United Kingdom counsel.