110. The Court had earlier found the Respondent in violation of the Applicant’s rights to property and fair hearing, it is then no gainsaying that the respondent has been found responsible for the wrongful act which obviously was linked to them. Therefore the Applicant is entitled to an appropriate reparation. Pecuniary reparation. 111. In this wise the Applicant has claimed the sum of 80 million FCFA for pecuniary damages and 30 million FCFA for moral damages for pain and suffering arising from the violation of his rights as alleged. Material prejudice. 112. The Applicant claim 80 million FCFA for pecuniary damages for the deprivation of his property. ……… 113. The Court has held ibid that the right of property of the Applicant has been violated by dispossessing him of his building located at Fass in Dakar, Senegal and consequent upon which he is entitled to reparation of compensation for the loss. The Court however notes that he did not support same with a report of an expert valuation of the said property. With unsupported evidentiary proof of its value, the Applicant is asking the Court to award a compensation in vacuity. As with the proof of violation of human rights, the Applicant has the duty to provide evidence to support any claim for reparation. As aptly put by The African Court, “It is clear that it is always the Applicant that bears the onus of justifying the claims made”. See ZONGO & ORS VBURKINA FASO 1 AFCLR 258#20-31 42