00il16 guaranteed by Article 7 of the Charter, and his right not to be tried twice for the same offence provided under Article 14(7) of the ICCPR and must be fully reimbursed. T3.Accordingly, the Court holds in conclusion that the Respondent State must reimburse the Applicant the sum of Two million three hundred and twenty-two thousand nine hundred and ninety (2,322,990) CFA Francs being the amount of various bailiffs fees. (d) Expenditure incurred in exile 74.The Applicant avers that it is the violation of his rights by the Respondent State, especially by having him tried a second time by CRIET, which pushed him into exile and resulted in the expenses that he would not have incurred had he not been in exile. He summarizes the said expenses as purchase of travel documents, hotel expenses and communication charges to discuss with his family and political supporters in Benin. 75.The Respondent State submits that with regard to the purchase of travel documents not used by the Applicant to return from exile, the Applicant has not sufficiently proven that he was prevented from travelling to Benin. The Respondent State claims that asking the Respondent State to reimburse the amounts of the said travel documents would tantamount to asking the Respondent State to pay for the holidays or leisure trips of a citizen who flouts the law by refusing to assume the criminal consequences of his actions. 76. The Court notes that for fear of the consequences of the criminal proceedings against him before CRIET, the Applicant found himself in exile in France with four (4) members of his family. The Court, having found that this procedure, which resulted in the I- -a \--i--