00086 8 were not informed of their right to have Counsel of their choice. Evidently, this has constrained the Applicants' capacity to defend themselves. 88.1n view of the above, the Court therefore finds that the failure of the Respondent State to inform the Applicants of their right to legal representation has violated Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter as read together with Article 14 (3) (d) of ICCPR. VI!I. REPARATIONS 89. The Applicants pray the Court to find a violation of their rights, set them free and make an order for reparations and for supervision of implementation. 90. On the other hand, the Respondent State prays the Court to find that it has not violated any of the rights of the Applicants and to dismiss the Application. 91 . Article 27(1) of the Protocol provides that "if the Court finds that there has been violation of a human or peoples' rights, it shall make appropriate orders to remedy the violation, including the payment of fair compensation or reparation." A. Pecuniary Reparations 92.The Court notes its finding above that the Respondent State has violated the Applicants' right to a fair trial by failing to provide free legal assistance and the right to be informed of the right to Counsel in the course of the criminal proceedings against them. ln this regard, the Court recalls its position on State responsibility that "any violation of an international obligation that has caused harm entails the obligation to provide adequate reparation". 1 7 17 See Reverend Christopher R. Mtikila v Tanzania (reparations) (2014) 1 AfCLR 72S 27 and Apptication No.010/2015. Judgmentof 11105/18, Amiri Ramadhani v. The United Repubticof Tinzania (Meiits), S 83.ss 22 @.--