24 ALPEYEVA AND DZHALAGONIYA v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION 131. The second applicant further complained that he had no effective remedy in respect of his complaints. He relied on Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.” 132. The Court reiterates that Article 13 guarantees the availability at national level of a remedy to enforce the substance of the Convention rights and freedoms in whatever form they might happen to be secured in the domestic legal order. The effect of this Article is thus to require the provision of a domestic remedy allowing the competent national authority both to deal with the substance of an “arguable” complaint under the Convention and to grant appropriate relief (see, among other authorities, Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, § 95, Reports, 1996-VI). 133. The Court notes that the second applicant’s complaint about the refusal to exchange his Russian passport was examined by domestic courts at two levels of jurisdiction. The courts were competent to set aside the decision of the FMS, had they found for the applicant. The fact that the proceedings resulted in an unfavourable outcome does not mean per se that the remedy was ineffective. 134. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 135. 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 136. The first applicant claimed 5,000 euros (EUR) and the second applicant claimed EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage caused by the suffering and feeling of helplessness they had endured as a result of not being recognised as Russian citizens and not having a valid identity document for several years. 137. The Government submitted that the claim was excessive and unfounded. 138. The Court considers that the applicants must have suffered non-pecuniary damage that cannot be sufficiently compensated for by the