00021s Respondent State to bear the costs; (iii) issue such other order(s) or measure(s) as the Court deems appropriate in the circumstances of the instant case. 101. However, when requested to clarify and substantiate his claim for reparation, the Applicant did not file any submissions. 102. The Respondent State in its submission prayed the Court to dismiss the Applicant's claim for reparation and order him to pay the costs. *** 103. Article 27(1\ of the Protocol provides that: "if the Court finds that there has been violation of a human or people's rights, it shall make appropriate orders to remedy the violation, including the payment of fair compensation or reparation". 104. Rule 63 of the Rules, stipulates that: "the Court shall rule on the request for reparation... by the same decision establishing the violation of a human and peoples' right or, if the circumstances so require, by a separate decision". 105. The Court recalls its jurisprudence in Reverend Christopher R. lt/ltikila v. United Republic of Tanzama in application of Article 27(1) of the Protocolwhereby "...any violation of an international obligation that has caused harm entails the obligation to provide adequate reparation."l 5 106. The Court notes that, in the instant case, the Applicant's right to legal aid was violated but this did not affect the outcome of his trial. The Court further notes that the violation it found caused non-pecuniary prejudice to the Applicant who requested adequate compensation in accordance with Article 27(1) of the Protocol. 107. The Court therefore awards the Applicant an amount of three hundred thousand Tanzania Shillings (TZS 300,000) as fair compensation. Application No. 01 112011. Ruling of 131612014, Reverend Christopher R. Mtikila v. United Republic of Tanzania. para.27 1s 24 s