interest of another individual.42 Moreover, as the Commission decided in the case of Huris-Laws v. Nigeria, in the absence of adequate compensation as it is in this case, there is a flagrant violation of the right to property protected under Article 14 of the African Charter.43 135. It emerges from the foregoing that the property over which the Complainant obtained an inalienable right to property is no longer in her possession. Under such circumstances, and since ownership of the same property has been transferred to someone else by the State, it should be noted that compensation through another plot of land of equal value is capable of compensating for the primary damage. Failing that, the most appropriate reparation would be the payment of financial compensation corresponding to the value of the property. 136. As concerns determining the value of the plot of land in question, the Commission notes that the assessment of reparation for the violation of the right to property on the basis of the market or capital value of the property is firmly established by international human rights jurisprudence. 44 In practice, the assessment of real estate in common law considers market value to be the value that one is likely to get from a property in the event it is resold under the current market conditions.45 On this basis, it should be concluded in the present case that the assessment has to be current and as such has to be made on the basis of the value of the property at the date of the decision granting reparation, especially given that the violation has not stopped. 137. Moreover, the assessment of the damages relating to the related damages suffered by the Complainant cannot be separated from that of the reparation of the primary damage. The parties do not dispute the fact that the Complainant lost both the material property and all the related rights, in particular usus, abusus and fructus. Also, installations made and materials kept on the plot of land were destroyed which definitely led to a financial loss. 138. Through the submissions to support her request for reparation, the Complainant requests for the following payments: See Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, Judgement of 23 September 1982 (ECtHR). See Huris-Laws v. Nigeria Communication 225/98 (2000) AHRLR 273 (ACHPR 2000) para 53. 44 See Case Concerning the Factory at Chorzow, Judgement of 13 September 1928, International Court of Justice; Guiso-Gallisay v. Italy, Application No. 58858/00 (ECtHR), Judgement of 22 December 2009; Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador, Judgement of 6 May 2008, Inter-American Court of Human Rights. 45 See Dictionnaire juridique du droit français http://dictionnaire-juridique.jurimodel.com/Valeur% 20v%E9nale.html (consulted on 5 April 2015). 42 43 32