Section 5(2)(a) is designed to take account of the fact that it is not possible to create a law which entitles the Irish courts to compensate people for the consequences of legislative Acts which are intra vires the Constitution and where no legal wrong has been done to them. Put simply, this means that if it is constitutional for this and the other House to enact a law inconsistent with the European Convention on Human Rights, it is not possible for the courts to demand from the State compensation for upholding or implementing the law laid down by this House. This does not mean nothing can be done about such cases. If a party was successful in obtaining a declaration of incompatibility, it did not make much sense if it was then faced with a choice of either going to the Court of Human Rights solely on the issue of quantum of damages or abandoning its right to compensation. How would this square with our intention to give further effect to the convention at home? This is the very issue faced by people in the same situation in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom, in particular. This is where section 5(4) comes in. It provides for a person in this situation to apply for ex gratia compensation from the State without the trouble and expense of having to go to Strasbourg to obtain it. However, the right which has existed since 1953 to take the Strasbourg route is still there, should the person wish to pursue it. If he or she decides to take the ex gratia option, the Government under section 5(5) can request an adviser to consider the amount of compensation, taking into account the principles and practice of the European Court in Strasbourg to afford just satisfaction in accordance with Article 41 of the convention.