INCAL JUDGMENT OF 9 JUNE 1998 26 and, among other authorities, mutatis mutandis, the Helle v. Finland judgment of 19 December 1997, Reports 1997-VIII, p. 2926, § 46). 73. In conclusion, the applicant had legitimate cause to doubt the independence and impartiality of the İzmir National Security Court. There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1. B. The proceedings in the Court of Cassation 74. Having regard to the above conclusion (see paragraph 73 above), the Court considers that it is not necessary to consider the other complaints under Article 6 relating to the proceedings in the Court of Cassation (see, mutatis mutandis, the Findlay judgment cited above, pp. 282–83, § 80). III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION 75. In his application to the Commission Mr Incal also alleged a breach of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 in that in refusing his application for his prison sentence to be commuted to a fine the İzmir National Security Court had taken account of his political opinions only. He did not maintain this complaint during the proceedings before the Court, which sees no reason to examine it of its own motion (see, mutatis mutandis, the United Communist Party of Turkey and Others judgment cited above, p. 28, § 62). IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION 76. Under Article 50 of the Convention, “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. Elimination of the consequences of the conviction 77. At the hearing Mr Incal asked to be reinstated in the rights he had lost, pursuant to Article 312 of the Criminal Code, on account of his conviction. He also asked the Court to order the Government to take steps to ensure that this provision would no longer be applied in domestic law. 78. The Court notes that it has no jurisdiction under the Convention to order such measures (see, mutatis mutandis, the Akdivar and Others v.