to establish causality as such”.29 In such instances, the Court awards lump sums for moral loss.30 95. Having found that the Respondent State violated the Applicant’s right to free legal assistance, contrary to Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter, the Court finds that he suffered moral prejudice and that he is entitled to compensation. 96. Consequently, in the exercise of its discretion, the Court awards the Applicant the sum of Tanzanian Shillings Three Hundred Thousand (TZS 300 000) as reparation for the moral prejudice sustained as a result of the violation.31 B. Non-pecuniary reparations 97. The Applicant does not specify his claims for non-pecuniary reparations. Nevertheless, in his Application, he prays the Court to grant “any other order(s) that it may deem fit and just to grant in the circumstances of this application.” * 98. For its part, the Respondent State prays that the Applicant’s prayers be dismissed. *** 99. Given the Applicant’s failure to either particularise his claims or lead evidence in support thereof, the Court concludes that the Applicant fails to establish a case for him to be awarded any non-pecuniary reparations. The Court, therefore, does not make any award for non-pecuniary reparations. 29 Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (reparations), supra, § 55; and Konaté v. Burkina Faso (reparations), supra, § 58. 30 Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (reparations), supra, §§ 61-62. 31 Evarist v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 90; and Paulo v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 111. 23