* 133. While it does not make any specific prayer regarding moral prejudice, the Respondent State prays that the Application be dismissed in its entirety. *** 134. The Court recalls its established jurisprudence that moral prejudice is always presumed in the event of a human rights violation. In such cases, the quantum of reparation is assessed in fairness, taking into account the circumstances of each case.25 135. In the present case, the Court notes that the violations suffered by the Applicant caused her moral harm, in particular, her inability to challenge the constitutionality of Article 236 of the Penal Code. 136. Consequently, the Court awards the Applicant Tunisian Dinars One Thousand (TND 1,000) as pecuniary reparation for the moral prejudice she suffered. B. Non-pecuniary reparation i. Guarantees of non-repetition 137. The Applicant prays the Court to order the Respondent State to take legislative, judicial and administrative measures to ensure non-repetition of the violations found. The Applicant also prays the Court to order the Respondent State to expedite and facilitate the establishment of the Constitutional Court and to make it operational in accordance with the requirements of the Respondent State’s law. 25 Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (reparations), supra, § 55; Umuhoza v. Rwanda (reparations), supra, § 59; Christopher Jonas v. United Republic of Tanzania (reparations) (25 September 2020) 4 AfCLR 545, § 23. 36