209. It further alleged that the Applicant's dilatory behaviour largely affected his interests through the multiple appeals he filed with two different lawyers. 210. As mentioned above, the Applicant cannot be penalised for having made use of the various procedures available to him to pursue his defence. An Applicant is not obliged to cooperate actively to expedite proceedings that may lead to his own conviction. 211. In this sense the Defendant's arguments cannot be accepted to justify the delay in the trial of the Applicant, which has long since exceeded the legal time limit for pre-trial detention provided for in the aforementioned legal provision. 212. Accordingly, this Court concludes that the conduct of the Defendant's agents constitutes a violation of Articles 7 (d) of the African Charter, 9 (3) and 14 (3) (c) and (5) of the ICCPR, and the Applicant's claim therefore stands in this point. X- REPARATIONS 213. The Applicant seeks compensation of 500,000,000 FCFA for the damage suffered. 214. In the instant case, it has been demonstrated that the Defendant State, through its agents, has violated the Applicant's rights to liberty and security and to be tried within a reasonable time as set forth above, which confers upon him the right to reparation in accordance with the principle of international law which states that: “everyone who has suffered a violation of his human rights is entitled to just and equitable reparation”, this taking into consideration that in matters of human rights violations, full reparation is, as a rule, impossible. (See Judgment No. ECW/CCJ/JUD/01/06, rendered 41