5.  Mr Trninić and Mr Novaković live in Serbia and the other applicants in Bosnia and Herzegovina. 6.  By judgments of the Banja Luka Court of First Instance of 18 September 2001, 28 January 2003, 27 March 2001, 25 February 2002, 19 March 2003, 6 July 1999, 5 November 2001, 4 April 2000, 21 December 1999, 12 May 1999, 1 October 1999, 17 April 2002, 17 October 2002, 22 April 2002, 17 July 2001 and 15 February 1999, which became final on 16 November 2004, 26 May 2005, 17 September 2003, 25 January 2005, 25 April 2005, 20 June 2001, 18 October 2004, 20 March 2002, 10 July 2001, 5 January 2001, 9 March 2001, 17 March 2005, 10 May 2005, 21 December 2004, 28 December 2004 and 6 July 2001 respectively, the Republika Srpska[1] was ordered to pay, within 15 days, the following amounts in respect of war damage together with default interest at the statutory rate from the date of the relevant first-instance judgment:
(a)  30,000 convertible marks (BAM)[2] in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 2,410 in respect of legal costs to Mr Čolić;
(b)  BAM 27,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 1,114 in respect of legal costs to Mr Trninić;
(c)  BAM 15,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 1,782 in respect of legal costs to Mr Punišić;
(d)  BAM 8,580 in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM 2,550 in respect of legal costs to Mr Jusufagić;
(e)  BAM 27,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 1,456 in respect of legal costs to Mr Novaković;
(f)  BAM 8,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage to Mr Vulin;
(g)  BAM 9,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 718 in respect of legal costs to Mr Vulin;
(h)  BAM 6,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 1,175 in respect of legal costs to the Žujićs;
(i)  BAM 15,200 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 1,567 in respect of legal costs to Mr Simović;
(j)  BAM 15,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, BAM 1,953 in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM 3,000 in respect of legal costs to the Malkićs;
(k)  BAM 20,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, BAM 600 in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM 1,500 in respect of legal costs to the Todorovićs;
(l)  BAM 16,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 1,374 in respect of legal costs to Mr Milić;
(m)  BAM 11,400 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 987 in respect of legal costs to Mr Višić;
(n)  BAM 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, BAM 2,000 in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM 1,015 in respect of legal costs to Ms Bojanić;
(o)  BAM 7,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, BAM 1,050 in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM 2,327 in respect of legal costs to Ms Petrović and the Ivanovs; and
(p)  BAM 15,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, BAM 2,241 in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM 1,132 in respect of legal costs to the Majstorovićs. 7.  The Banja Luka Court of First Instance issued writs of execution (rješenje o izvršenju) on 20 April 2005, 24 October 2005, 4 November 2003, 19 April 2005, 26 December 2005, 31 January 2005 (ordering the enforcement of two judgments in favour of Mr Vulin), 2 June 2003, 1 November 2001, 6 July 2001, 4 April 2002, 5 September 2005, 25 October 2005, 7 April 2005, 19 April 2005 and 29 August 2001 respectively. 8.  The applicants complained of non-enforcement to the Human Rights Chamber or to the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina. On 9 November 2005 the Human Rights Commission (the legal successor of the Human Rights Chamber) found a breach of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in the cases of Mr Simović, the Malkićs, the Todorovićs and the Majstorovićs. On 20 December 2005, 12 April and 27 June 2006 the Constitutional Court ruled likewise in the cases of Mr Čolić, Mr Trninić, Mr Jusufagić, Mr Novaković, Mr Vulin, Mr Milić, Mr Višić, Ms Bojanić, Ms Petrović and the Ivanovs. On 3 July 2006, following amendments to the Domestic Debt Act 2004, the Human Rights Commission, in the cases of Mr Punišić and the Žujićs, considered the matter to have been resolved and dismissed these cases. 9.  It would appear that the judgments under consideration in the present case have not yet been fully enforced (see paragraph 11 below).