138. The Court recalls its established jurisprudence that, “to examine
Applications for reparation of prejudices resulting from human
and assess
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”. “
139. The Court also reiterates that, the purpose of reparation is to “...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.”41
Measures that a State could 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.“
140. The Court further reiterates that the general rule with regard to material prejudice
is that there must be a causal link between the established violation and the
prejudice suffered by the Applicant and the onus is on the Applicant to provide
evidence to justify his prayers.“ With regard to moral prejudice, presumptions
141
are made in favour of the Applicant.*4
The Court will consider the Applicant's claims for compensation on the basis of
these principles.
“°Mohamed Abubakari v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits), § 242 (ix); Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v.
Republic of Rwanda (reparations), (2018) 2 AfCLR 202, § 19.
41 Application No. 007/2013. Judgment of 04 July 2019 (reparations), Mohamed Abubakari v. United
Republic of Tanzania, § 21, Application No. 005/2013. Judgment of 04 July 2019 (reparations), Alex
Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania, § 12; Application No. 006/2013. Judgment of 04 July 2019
(reparations), Wilfred Onyango Nganyi and 9 Others v. United Republic of Tanzania, § 16.
“2Ingabire Umuhoza v. Rwanda (reparations), § 20.
43Reverend Christopher R. Mtikila v. United Republic of Tanzania (reparations) (2014) 1 AfCLR 72 § 40;
Lohé Issa Konaté v. Burkina Faso (reparations) (2016) 1 ATCLR 346, § 15.
“4Beneficiaries of late Norbert Zongo v. Burkina Faso (reparations) § 55.
38