HOUSING RIGHTS set the homes on fire. However, the Commission accepted that the applicants’ homes had been burnt, and that the weight of the evidence pointed to the security forces having carried out the destruction. The Court found breaches of the right to home and family life under Article 8 and to property under Protocol 1 Article 1. However, it did not uphold a claim under the non-discrimination provision of Article 14 that the destruction was ethnically motivated. The Court held that the victims should be compensated for their loss of homes and the cost of alternative accommodation, and for the loss of income from the forced abandonment of their land. Other cases followed, such as Mentes and Selcuk,39 reinforcing the Kurds’ claim that the activity was part of a systematic operation to control and subjugate the population. To date, over 500 applicants have been assisted in bringing complaints against Turkey. With over 90 per cent of cases establishing a violation, they have shone a light on some of the worst human rights abuses ever carried out by a member state of the Council of Europe. As well as providing effective forms of redress for individual victims (i.e. monetary compensation), the cases helped to keep the situation of the Kurdish people in the public consciousness in Western Europe and undoubtedly contributed towards the tough stance taken by the EU towards Turkey in relation to admission negotiations. The result has been some improvement in the human rights situation of the Kurdish minority. These cases also demonstrate how a traditional civil and political rights mechanism can be used by minorities to secure fundamental economic and social entitlements. Another benefit of the litigation work has been to increase the capacities and skills of local lawyers and NGOs to bring cases themselves, thereby empowering Kurds to claim their own rights. Case study 2 – Holding the World Bank to account in Tibet The impact of the World Bank on the rights of minorities and indigenous people has been profound. While many of its projects have contributed towards combating poverty and improving living standards in the developing world, there have been numerous examples when it has had a negative impact on marginalized people’s rights.40 In 1993, the World Bank established an Inspection Panel of independent experts to investigate projects and make recommendations. The Panel is generally seen as a positive initiative that provides some accountability for the World Bank and monitors the level of effective participation in Bank-funded projects of affected groups. The Inspection Panel however lacks the true independence of a court or ombudsperson and remains very much subject to the Bank’s will. The Board of the Bank chaired by the President appoints the Panel members. The Board must approve any request for a Panel inspection and is not obliged to accept its 35