x. Set up a fund for advocacy and services in the interests of PWA with participation of PWA in its design, establishment and implementation; and xi. Provide other symbolic reparations as the Court deems appropriate. 362. The Respondent State prays the Court to dismiss the prayers on reparations as “baseless, misconceived and untenable; and to deny the request for publication.” *** 363. Article 27(1) of the Protocol stipulates that “[i]f the Court finds that there has been violation of a human or peoples’ right, it shall make appropriate orders to remedy the violation, including the payment of fair compensation or reparation.” 364. The Court recalls its earlier judgments and restates its position that, “to examine and assess applications for reparation of prejudices resulting from human rights violations, it takes into account the principle according to which the State found guilty of an internationally wrongful act is required to make full reparation for the damage caused to the victim”.103 365. The Court also restates that reparations “… must, as far as possible, erase all the consequences of the wrongful act and restore the state which would presumably have existed if that act had not been committed.”104 366. The measures that a State may take to remedy a violation of human rights include: restitution, compensation and rehabilitation of the victim, as well as measures to ensure non-repetition of the violations taking into account the circumstances of each case.105 103 Abubakari v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 242 (ix), Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v. Republic of Rwanda (reparations) (7 December 2018) 2 AfCLR 202, § 19. 104 Mohamed Abubakari v. United Republic of Tanzania (reparations) (4 July 2019) 3 AfCLR 334, § 21; Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania (reparations) (4 July 2019) 3 AfCLR 287, § 12; Wilfred Onyango Nganyi and 9 others v. United Republic of Tanzania, (reparations) (4 July 2019) 3 AfCLR 308, § 16. 105 Umuhoza v. Rwanda (reparations), supra, § 20. 83