(1) year and ten (10) months. The Court is of the view that, in the circumstances of
this case where the Applicant was accused of murder and faced the death
sentence, such delay is also likely to have caused anguish. The prejudice that
ensued warrants compensation, which the Court has discretion to evaluate based
on equity. Given the circumstances, the Court grants the Applicant moral damages
in the amount of US Dollars Two Thousand ($2,000).
182. Regarding the requests for payment of compensation for moral prejudice suffered
by friends and family members as indirect victims, the Court recalls that victim hood
must be established to justify damages. 55 Given that the related claims are based
on the conviction, sentencing and incarceration of the Applicant, they do not warrant
damages as earlier found regarding similar claims made for the Applicant himself.
The Court consequently dismisses the claims.
183. Finally, the Applicant requests for payment of damages as a substitute for
restitution as he cannot be returned to the situation prior to the violations. In light of
its previous findings on the Applicant's conviction, sentencing and incarceration;
and given that the order for release was denied and relief granted especially with
respect to the delayed proceedings, the Court is of the view that the compensation
sought is not warranted. The claim is consequently dismissed.
ii. Material damages
184. The Applicant asks the Court to grant him the amount of US Dollars Fifteen
Thousand ($15,000) for monetary loss suffered by his friends and family due to his
undue detention (the loss resulting among others from his family having to sell their
cocoa farm to pay a lawyer and Ms Mollel having suffered from witnessing the
Applicant's injuries and pain, and having to incur costs of a flight to Cote d'lvoire to
inform the Applicant's family about his situation).
185. The Respondent State submits that there is no proof regarding the claims of loss
due to the sale of a cocoa farm and a trip by Ms Mollel to Cote d'lvoire, which are
new and fabricated evidence.
55
See, Norbert Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (Reparations), op. cit., §§ 45-54.
44
P;
~r
~
~~