96. On the High Court's refusal to order the Applicant’s reinstatement in his job, the Court based on its previous findings, considers that the said decision was upheld by the Rwanda Supreme Court in accordance with domestic law. Since the Court has also found that the said decisions are consistent with the applicable international law, there is no need to revisit them. 97. On the lack of compensation for the prejudice caused by the dismissal, this Court notes that in its two Judgments, the Supreme Court of Rwanda amply referred to and examined the Applicant's pleadings as mentioned above. The Supreme Court had concluded that he suffered prejudice as a result of the dismissal and upheld the payment of compensation as ordered by the High Court. In particular, on the insufficiency of the compensation awarded by the High Court, the Supreme Court, on the basis of his status, his relation with the management of the company and other factors related to the circumstances of the case, dismissed the Applicant's prayer for a review of the quantum and an increase of the compensation. 98. The Court therefore finds that the allegation of dismissal without compensation is unfounded, and therefore dismisses it. Prejudice arising from the disparaging and defamatory wording of the termination letter and failure to issue a certificate of service 99. The Court notes that, according to the Applicant's allegations, the disparaging and defamatory wording used by RECO & RWASCO Company in the dismissal letter had a significant adverse effect on him in obtaining a new job. To buttress this allegation, the Applicant submits that, having written tests for positions at the Kigali been declared successful University Hospital and the in the Rwanda Housing Authority, he was not retained after the interview. This was because his former employer failed to issue him with a Certificate of Service as requested by the would-be employers, and that this was prejudicial to him in his quest for a new job. 25