Applicant is, therefore, entitled to reparations commensurate with the established violations. 65. The Court notes that the Applicants’ prayers relate to both pecuniary and non-pecuniary reparations. A. Pecuniary reparations i. Material prejudice 66. The Court recalls that for it to grant reparations for material prejudice, there must be a causal link between the violation established by the Court and the prejudice caused and there should be a specification of the nature of the prejudice and proof thereof. 24 Further, this Court has held that an Applicant bears the burden of providing evidence to support his/her claims for material prejudice.25 67. In the instant case, the Applicant simply prays the Court to grant reparations to the extent that the Court deems fit. In any event, he does not support his prayers with proof of the loss incurred. 68. In the circumstances, the Court, therefore, does not grant reparation for material prejudice to the Applicant. ii. Moral prejudice 69. While not specifically referring to moral prejudice, the Applicant prays for the Court to order the Respondent State to pay reparations in such amount as the Court deems fit. 24 Nguza Viking (Babu Seya) and Another v. United Republic of Tanzania (reparations) (8 May 2020) 4 AfCLR 3, §15 and Kijiji Isiaga v. Republic of Tanzania, AfCHPR, Application No. 011/2015, Judgment of 25 June 2021 (reparations), § 20. 25 Msuguri v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 122; Elisamehe v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 97 and Guehi v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 15. 16