SAMADBAYLI AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT 7 32. The Court therefore finds that the respondent State has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention. VI. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 33. Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” A. Damage 34. Each applicant in applications nos. 36821/11, 37656/11, 37661/11, 37740/11, 38636/11, 38885/11 and 42345/11 claimed 20,000 Azerbaijani manats (AZN) (approximately 18,600 euros (EUR) at the time of submission of the claims) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Each applicant in applications nos. 37866/11 and 42360/11 claimed AZN 50,000 (approximately EUR 46,500 at the time of submission of the claims) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicant in application no. 41066/11 claimed AZN 40,000 (approximately EUR 37,200 at the time of submission of the claim) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. All claims were submitted between 5 April and 2 June 2014. 35. The Government considered that the claims were excessive and that EUR 7,500 to each applicant would represent a reasonable award in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 36. Ruling on an equitable basis, the Court awards each applicant the sum of EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable. B. Costs and expenses 37. Each applicant also claimed AZN 2,500 (approximately EUR 2,325 at the time of submission of the claims) for legal fees incurred before the Court, AZN 300 (approximately EUR 280 at the time of submission of the claims) for translation expenses and AZN 70 (approximately EUR 65 at the time of submission of the claims) for postal expenses. All claims were submitted between 5 April and 2 June 2014. 38. The Government submitted that the claims were excessive and were not fully supported by relevant documents. Moreover, given the fact that the applicants were represented by the same lawyer as had represented other applicants in similar cases involving similar and/or repetitive submissions, the Government argued they should be awarded a reduced amount.