30. The Court notes that, in examining an Application for interpretation, it does not complete or modify the decision it rendered - it being a final decision with the effect of res judicata - but clarifies the meaning and scope thereof. 31.ln the context of the instant request for interpretation, the Court wishes to recall the principle generally applied by international jurisdictions that reparation should, as far as possible, erase the consequences of an unlawful act and restore the state which would have presumably existed if the act had not been committed. 32.ln this regard, Article 27(1) of the Protocol provides that: "if the Court finds that there has been violation of a human or peoples' rights, it shall make appropriate orders to remedy the violation, including the payment of fair compensation or reparation. " 33. As has been stated above, the most appropriate form of remedy for violation of the right to a fair trial is to act in such a way that the victim finds him/herself in the situation that he/she would have been had the violation found not been committed. To attain this objective, the United Republic of Tanzania has two options: it should either reopen the case in compliance with the rules of a fair trial or take all appropriate measures to ensure that the Applicant finds himself in the situation preceding the violations. 34.As regard the first option, the Court is of the view that reopening the case would not be a just measure, in as much as the Applicant has already spent nineteen (19) years in prison, more than a half of the prison sentence, and given that a fresh judicial procedure could be long. 1 Accordingly, the Court has excluded such a measure. 1 Application No. 007/2013 Mohamed Abubakari v. United Republic of Tanzania, Judgment of 3 June 2016, Paragraph 235. A.A / ar J;[ _flr ~ G;, ~\ ~