caused to a victim for which reparation is sought. In this regard the Court held that, “To be a victim necessitates the establishment of a link between the Applicant and the alleged violation of human rights, that is, there must exist facts to show that the applicant has suffered a direct injury or loss traceable to the acts of the Respondent. SAWADOGO PAUL & 3 ORS v. REPUBLIC OF BURKINA FASO ECW/CCJ/JUD/07/20 PAGE 10. Alleged violation of Freedom of assembly and movement. 148. The violation of these rights were brought both in personal and representative capacities. The Court having made different findings in both capacities will address the reparations separately. Alleged Violation of the Applicants’ right to assembly and movement. 149. Having held that the Applicants lack the competence as legal persons to institute an action for the violation of their rights to assembly and movement and having dismissed same, the Court declines the compensation claimed and dismisses the reliefs in that wise. Alleged Violation of the Applicants’ right to freedom of expression 150. Having held that though the Applicants have the capacity to maintain an action for the violation of their right to freedom of expression but lacks locus standi, the Court declines the compensation claimed and dismisses the reliefs claimed in that wise. Alleged Violation of The Senegalese’ right to movement. 151. Having held that the Respondent did not violate the Senegalese’ right to movement, the claim for compensation is hereby dismissed. 45