the right to enjoy its fruits (fructus) and the right to dispose of it, including the right to sell it (abusus).18 114. In the instant case, the Applicant alleges that the trial judges erred in the application of the law, which prevented him from owning the property. The Court however considers that the allegation is baseless insofar as the Applicant never owned the property given that he cannot lay claim to any of the three above stated elements of the right to property. It follows that the Applicant has no basis to allege violation of his right to ownership. 115. The Court, therefore, dismisses the Applicant’s allegation and holds that the Respondent State did not violate his right to property, protected by Article 14 of the Charter. IX. REPARATIONS 116. The Applicant prays the Court to: i. Declare that his right to a fair trial before an impartial court was violated with regard to the decisions of the Respondent State’s domestic courts ii. Order the Tunisian state to return to him the property in question, valued at the price concluded at the first auction. iii. Order the Respondent State to pay him reparations the not less than 31 Million Euros for damages suffered. iv. In the event that it is impossible to return the property, to compensate him with at least 50 Million Euros for all the damages suffered. * 117. The Respondent did not submit on reparations. *** 18 African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v. Republic of Kenya (merits) (2017) 2 AfCLR 9, § 124; Sébastien Germain Ajavon v. Republic of Benin (merits) (2019) 3 AfCLR 130, § 264. 26