PAVEL IVANOV v. RUSSIA DECISION 5 matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I). In the present case the Court does not see any factor by which it can be established that the applicant's right to a fair trial was infringed. The District and Regional Courts gave their judgments at the end of adversarial proceedings, in which the applicant was present and represented. The applicant was able to expose the alleged shortcomings of the expert reports commissioned by the prosecution and to submit all the observations and arguments he deemed necessary. The courts assessed the credibility of the evidence having regard to the applicant's submissions and gave reasons for their findings. The mere fact that the applicant disagreed with the courts' decisions does not suffice to conclude that the proceedings were not fair. Furthermore, the Court reiterates that, according to its constant case-law, Article 13 of the Convention applies only where an individual has an “arguable claim” to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, § 52). The Court has found above that the applicant's complaint under Article 10 was inadmissible, as incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention. Article 13 is therefore inapplicable to the case. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. 3. The applicant also complained under Article 14 of the Convention that he was discriminated against on account of his religious beliefs. The Court reiterates that, in accordance with its established case-law, Article 14 has no independent existence, since it has effect solely in relation to the rights and freedoms safeguarded by the other substantive provisions of the Convention and its Protocols (see, among many other authorities, Gaygusuz v. Austria, no. 17371/90, § 36, ECHR 1996-IV). In the present case the applicant's complaints under the substantive Convention Articles were found inadmissible and, accordingly, there is no room for application of Article 14. It follows that the complaint under Article 14 must be rejected as being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Declares the application inadmissible. Søren NIELSEN Registrar Christos ROZAKIS President