its legislation on defamation in order to make it compliant with Article 9 of the Charter, Article 19 of the Covenant and Article 66(2) of the Revised ECOWAS Treaty.”°8 Further, in a case involving the Republic of Mali, the Court held that: ... with respect to the measures requested by the Applicants in paragraph 16 (i), (ii), (iv), (Vv), (vi) and (vii), relating to the amendment of the national law, the Court holds that the Respondent State has to amend its legislation to bring it in line with the relevant provisions of the applicable international instruments.°9 118. The Court having found that article 41(7) of the Respondent State’s Constitution violates Articles 1, 2, and 7(1)(a) of the Charter orders the Respondent State to take all necessary constitutional and legislative measures, reasonable time, to ensure that article 41(7) of its Constitution within is amended aligned with the provisions of the Charter so as to eliminate, among others, a and any violation of Articles 2, and 7(1) (a) of the Charter. 119. The Respondent State is also ordered to report to the Court, within twelve (12) months of this judgment, on the measures taken to implement the terms of this judgment. B. Other measures of reparations 120. The Court notes that the Applicant did not specifically request for other measures of reparation but prays the Court to order “any other remedy and/or relief that the Honourable Court will deem to grant.” kK 121. The Court recalls that Article 27(1) of the Protocol gives it power to “make appropriate orders to remedy” violations. In the circumstances, the Court reaffirms 38 Lohe Issa Konate v. Burkina Faso (merits) §176. 38 APDF and IHRDA v. Mali (merits and reparations) (2018) 2 AfCLR 380 §130. 32