G.T.B. v. SPAIN JUDGMENT applicant in obtaining identity documents. However, in the particular case at hand, the Court considers that the authorities failed in their positive obligation to act with due diligence in order to assist the applicant to have his birth registered and, as a consequence, to have his identity documents obtained. 131. In view of the above considerations, the Court finds that there has been a violation of the authorities’ positive obligations in securing enjoyment of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life under Article 8 of the Convention. III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 132. 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 1. The parties’ submissions 133. The applicant claimed 1,288,088,41 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, based on the physical and especially mental suffering he had been through during the more than twenty years when he had been unable to obtain his identity documents. He based the amount on the mental disorders established in the various reports he submitted. 134. The Government maintained that the applicant had not justified the amount claimed in respect of non-pecuniary damage, or demonstrated the causal link between such damage and any actions or omissions of the domestic public authorities. However, they opposed the amount on several grounds. (i) The applicant could not claim to have sustained damage on account of his lack of an ID card from when he had been born until he had obtained an ID card at the age of 21, because an ID card was only mandatory from the age of 14. (ii) The applicant could not claim to have sustained damage on account of a lack of access to education when he had had access to the education system. (iii) The amount of EUR 825,546.70 which the applicant had claimed in his administrative complaint corresponded to his estimate of the damage resulting from his lack of access to the job market, but there was no mention of the right to education or a breach of the public authorities’ duty of care. (iv) The total amount of EUR 1,288,088.41 which the applicant had claimed in his first judicial complaint appeared to result from supplementing the previously mentioned amount by EUR 75,730 for “failure to comply with the objectives of the Canary Islands’ comprehensive plan” and EUR 282,320 36