act and restore the state which would have presumably existed if the act had not been committed. 32.ln this regard, Article 27(1) of the Protocol provides that: "if the Court finds that there has been violation of a human or peoples' rights, it shall make appropriate orders to remedy the violation, including the payment of fair compensation for reparation". 33. As has been stated above the most appropriate form of remedy for violation of the right to a fair trial is to act in such a way that the victim finds himself or herself in the situation that he or she would have been had the violation found not been committed. To attain this objective, the United Republic of Tanzania has two alternatives: it should either reopen the case in compliance with the rules of a fair trial or take all appropriate measures to ensure that the Applicant finds himself in the situation preceding the violations. 34. As regards the first option, the Court is of the view that reopening the case would not be a just measure, in as much as the Applicant has already spent twenty one (21) years in prison, more than half of the prison sentence, and given that a fresh judicial procedure could be long. 1 Accordingly, the Court has excluded such a measure. 35. Concerning second option, the Court intended to offer the United Republic of Tanzania State room for evaluation to enable it to identify and activate all the measures that would enable it eliminate the effects of the violations established by the Court. 36. The Court specifies at this juncture that in its Judgment of 20 November 2015, it did not state that the Applicant's request was unfounded. It merely indicated that Application No. 005/2013 Alex Thomas v United Republic of Tanzania, Judgment of 20 November 2015 Paragraph 158. 1