circumstances of the case.22 The practice of the Court, in such instances, is to award a lump sum for moral prejudice.23 86. ln view of the above, the Court grants the Applicant moral damages in the sum of Tanzanian Shillings Three Hundred Thousand (TZS 300,000). B. Non-pecuniary reparations 87. The Applicant prays the Court to quash his conviction and order his release from prison. 88. The Respondent State submits that the Court has no jurisdiction to order the release of the Applicant. It therefore prays the Court to reject this prayer. *** i. On the prayer to quash the conviction 89. Regarding the prayer to quash his conviction, the Court notes that it did not determine whether the conviction of the Applicant was warranted or not. Furthermore, the Court was satisfied that the manner in which the Respondent State determined the case did not occasion any error or miscarriage of justice to the Applicant requiring its intervention.24 The Court therefore dismisses this prayer. ii. On the prayer for release 90. Regarding the prayer for release, the Court has held that this measure can be ordered only in specific and compelling circumstances. This would be 22 Juma v. Tanzania (judgment), supra, § 144; Viking and Another v. Tanzania (reparations), supra, § 41 and Umuhoza v. Rwanda (reparations), supra, § 59. 23 Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (reparations), supra, §§ 61-62 and Guehi v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 177. 24 Stephen John Rutakikirwa v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 013/2016, Judgment of 24 March 2022, § 88. 20