iii. Moral prejudice 173. The Court recalls its jurisprudence that moral prejudice suffered by the Applicant is presumed once the Court has found a violation of his rights, such that it is no longer necessary to seek evidence to establish the link between the violation and the damage in cases of human rights violations. The Court has also held that the assessment of the amounts to be awarded for moral damage should be made on the basis of equity, taking into account the circumstances of each case.48 174. In the instant case, the Court finds that the moral prejudice suffered by the Applicant emanates from the violation of his rights in connection with the Penal Code and the non-enforcement of the Court's decisions. 175. The Court observes that the quantum of reparation to be awarded to the Applicant in the present case must be assessed in the light of the degree of mental anguish he must have suffered as a result of the violation of his rights by the above-mentioned laws as well as the failure by the Respondent State to comply with the Court's decisions concerning him. 176. It notes that as result of the failure to comply with the judgment delivered on 4 December 2020, in Application No. 003/2020 - Houngué Eric Noudéhouenou v. Benin, the Applicant was unable to contest this country's parliamentary and presidential elections.49 It considers that this situation was the cause of moral prejudice for the Applicant. Ibid, § 146. Houngue Éric Noudehouenou v. Republic of Benin, ACtHPR, Application No. 003/2020, judgment of 4 December 2020 (Merits and reparations), §§ 123(xii): the court had ordered the Respondent State to take all measures to repeal Law No. 2019-40 of 1 November 2019 amending Law No. 90-032 of 11 December 1990 on the Constitution of the Republic of Benin and all subsequent laws in order to ensure that its citizens participate freely and directly, without any political, administrative or judicial impediments, prior to any election 48 49 45