168. . The Respondent State argues that the Applicant's prayer for a guarantee of nonrepetition of the violations is untenable, baseless and misconceived. ak 169. The Court has already noted that, if the set objective is to prevent future violations, guarantees of non-repetition are usually ordered in order to eradicate structural and systemic violations of human rights. Such measures are therefore not generally intended to repair individual prejudice but rather to remedy the underlying causes of the violation. guarantees of non-repetition may However, also be the relevant, Court considers that particularly in individual cases where it is established that the violation will not cease or is likely to reoccur. These entail cases where the Respondent State has challenged or has not complied with the previous findings and orders of the Court.°° 170. In the instant case, the Court notes that the nature of the violations found, that is, the Applicant's rights to free legal assistance and to be tried within a reasonable, are unlikely to recur as the proceedings in respect of which they arose have already been completed. Furthermore, the Court has already awarded compensation for the moral prejudice the Applicant suffered as a result of the said violations. The Court therefore holds that in the circumstances, the request is not justified and the same is therefore dismissed. ii. | Measures of satisfaction 171 . The Applicant prays the Court to order the Respondent State to publish the decision on the merits of the Application in the Official Gazette within one (1) month from the date of delivery of the judgment as a measure of satisfaction. 172 . The Respondent State did not make any submission in this respect. 5SArmand Guehi v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) § 191. 46