Regional systems 107 However, if a remedy that should have been sought by the applicant has not been sought, the Court will declare the case inadmissible. Only “effective” remedies capable of remedying the violation completely must be exhausted, and this normally includes both judicial and administrative procedures. Discretionary remedies (such as seeking clemency after a conviction) do not generally have to be pursued. Once a final judgement in the relevant domestic proceedings is received, the applicant must lodge a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights within six months. Where a law in force constitutes a continuing violation, the application may be made at any time. If the applicant is initially unaware of the violation, the six-month limit begins from the date he or she acquires actual knowledge. It is important to note that the application cannot have been previously submitted to another body of international investigation, such as the United Nations Human Rights Committee. Finally, the application must claim violation of a right that is actually protected under the Convention. For example, a claim of ethnic or religious discrimination in the administration of a State’s social security scheme would not be admissible, because there is no right under the Convention to social security. However, this limited interpretation of discrimination was expanded by the entry into force of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention. Investigation and decision There may be an exchange of written pleadings on both admissibility issues and the substantive merits of an application. Each party may comment on the submissions made by the other party. The process is usually by way of written pleadings only, although the Court may decide to hold an oral hearing on admissibility or the merits or both. Again, each side is represented at any hearing, and the entire procedure is based on equality between the applicant and the State as party. NGOs may be asked to provide expert evidence or to appear as witnesses, and minority rights advocates should be aware of the possibility of submitting an amicus curiae brief to the Court if a case is of particular concern. This procedure is called a third-party intervention and may be sought once a case has been communicated to the respondent State for its observations. It offers the possibility of providing useful information to the Court on an issue that may have a direct impact on minority rights beyond the scope of the particular case at hand. An NGO interested in intervening should write to the President of the Court for permission within 12 weeks of communication of the case to the State concerned, information about which can be obtained from the Court’s website. The Court examines the merits of the case through the written pleadings, and it may hear witnesses or even travel to the country concerned if it is deemed necessary. The Court will seek to reach a friendly settlement, if that is possible, but this happens only if both sides agree. The Court’s deliberations are in private, but its judgement is public and is communicated immediately to both parties. The Court has limited its judgements to determining whether or not there has been a violation of the Convention and awarding monetary damages and costs when a violation is found. The Court does not, in principle, issue orders to Governments, for example, to release a prisoner or change its laws. However, in recent years it has shifted somewhat in this respect, for example, by indicating that an unlawfully detained person should be released (Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC] (2004)). As noted above, the Court’s judgement is legally binding on States parties to the Convention. Ensuring compliance with a decision of the Court is a matter for the Committee of Ministers under article 46.2 of the Convention, although the great majority of States do comply with judgements readily. ‚