ii. Moral prejudice 99. The Applicant made a general prayer for reparations without making specific submissions on pecuniary reparations for moral prejudice. Nevertheless, as established in this judgment, the Applicant suffered several violations which inherently involve moral prejudice. The Court further observes that in the instant Application, as the Applicant is in detention awaiting execution of the death sentence, he has inevitably suffered prejudice from the established violations. These violations result from the very imposition of the mandatory death sentence as well as the method of execution of the death sentence, namely by hanging. 100. In light of the foregoing, the Court holds that the Applicant is entitled to moral damages as there is a presumption that he has suffered some form of moral prejudice as a result of the above-mentioned violations. The Court has previously held that the assessment of quantum in cases of moral prejudice must be done in fairness, taking into account the circumstances of the case.34 The practice of the Court, in such instances, is to award lump sums for moral prejudice.35 101. The Court has also previously held that a judgment finding violation of rights protected under the Charter forms part of reparations.36 In the instant case, the Court found a violation of Articles 4 and 5 of the Charter. The Court holds that such findings constitute substantial reparation as it significantly addresses the main breach alleged by the Applicant. 102. The Court, in the judicial exercise of its discretion, awards the Applicant moral damages in the sum of Tanzanian Shillings Three Hundred Thousand (TZS 300,000). 34 Juma v. Tanzania (judgment), supra, § 144; Viking and Another v. Tanzania (reparations), supra, § 41 and Umuhoza v. Rwanda (reparations), supra, § 59. 35 Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (reparations), supra, §§ 61-62 and Guehi v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 177. 36 Reverend Christopher R. Mtikila v. United Republic of Tanzania (judgment) (14 June 2013) 1 AfCLR 34, §§ 45; Cheusi v. Tanzania, supra, 173; Guehi v. Tanzania, ibid, 194. 25