Executive Council Decision 344(X).47 In its subsequent established jurisprudence, the Commission has reaffirmed this period for the implementation of its recommendations in order to guarantee the right to effective reparation.48 146. In this case, the Commission is of the view that in the event where the assessment of the sales value for the purpose of compensation is not concluded within six months following the present decision, it will be considered following a reasoned submission from the Complainant. If the need arises, the procedural rights of the Respondent State will be guaranteed. Subsequent damages 147. Considering the evidence submitted and in light of the foregoing, material damage in the amount of 9,000,000 CFA francs is granted and is to be paid insofar as the Complainant presents the necessary supporting evidence for the fees claimed from the Respondent State following the notification of this decision. The financial compensation of 15,391,460 CFA francs as a result of the deprivation of enjoyment and use of the property has been sufficiently proven by the Complainant, and assessed on the basis of the regulations in force in the competent regional financial institutions, in particular the Bank of Central African States. As such, the Commission accedes to this request. 148. Regarding non-material damage, the Commission notes that following the expulsion of the Complainant’s husband, his family was deprived of the right to enjoy a property which was nevertheless bought in full compliance with the regulations of the Respondent State. This situation inevitably led to frustration which turned into uncertainty when the several attempts to seek the relevant remedies were frustrated by the authorities of the Respondent State as the Commission concluded at the admissibility stage. 149. The Complainant’s uncertainty and frustration have lasted for close to seven years, and the violation has continued as a result of the Respondent State’s refusal to take the necessary measures to restore the Complainant’s rights. Considering the nature of the right in question, the project undertaken by the Complainant and her family and the circumstances of the case, the Commission is of the view that 5,000,000 CFA francs is not an exorbitant amount, and as such accedes to this request. See Executive Council Decision on the 21st Activity Report of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights – Doc EX.CL/322(X) AU Doc EX.CL/Dec.344(X) Tenth Ordinary Session, 25-26 January 2007. 48 See, among others, Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights and Another (Meldrum) v. Zimbabwe (2009) AHRLR 268 (ACHPR 2009); Lawyers for Human Rights v. Swaziland (2005) AHRLR 66 (ACHPR 2005). 47 35