122. In the present case, the Court has established that the Respondent State violated the Applicant’s right to a fair trial, provided for in Article 7(1) of the Charter read together with Article 14(1) of the ICCPR, insofar as it failed to deliver in open court Judgment No. 31528 of 12 March 2013 of the Court of Appeal of Tunis as well as the Judgment No. 45501/46360 of 4 December 2017 of the Supreme Court. The Applicant’s request for reparations must therefore be examined in the light of the established violations. A. Pecuniary reparations i. Material prejudice 123. In the instant case, the Applicant prays the Court to order the Respondent State to return to him the property in dispute, at the price concluded at the first auction, and to compensate him with an amount not less than ThirtyOne Million (31 000 000) Euros for the prejudice suffered. The Applicant prays, in the event that it is impossible to return the property, that he should be paid compensation of at least Fifty Million (50 000 000) Euros for all the prejudice suffered. However, he does not demonstrate the causal link between the material prejudice suffered and the violation of his right to fair trial, in particular the non-delivery of the above-mentioned decisions in open court, as provided for in Article 7(1) of the Charter. 124. In any event, the Court is of the view that is findings in the present Judgment do not affect the decisions of domestic courts regarding the outcome of the bid, or the Applicant’s ownership of the property involved. 125. Consequently, the Court dismisses the Applicant’s prayer for reparation for material prejudice. ii. Moral prejudice 126. Without specifically mentioning moral prejudice, the Applicant prays the Court in general terms to grant him reparations. 28