ensures them that they will have a place to go.” CUBA V UNITED STATES, https://www.hrw.org/reports/2005/cuba1005/4.htm . See also SIR DAWDA K. JAWARA V THE GAMBIA (SUPRA). 137. In the instant case, the Court notes that the said Order has not prevented citizens of the Respondent from moving within the borders of their country, neither has it prevented them from freely moving outside the borders of and returning to their country nor within the defined areas indicated in the Order. The Court has not been presented with evidence to show that the Senegalese have been prevented from accessing the defined areas in the course of carrying out their daily activities. 138. The fact that they have been prevented from carrying out political demonstrations within these designated areas of the city of Dakar, does not amount to the violation of their right to freedom of movement. 139. The Court in its considered opinion does not agree with the Applicant that the right to movement is implicated in the instant case, and consequently holds that the rights of Senegalese people to freedom of movement has not been violated due to the prohibition of Order N° 7580 / MINSTSP of 20 July 2011. The claim of the Applicant the right to freedom of movement is hereby dismissed. X. REPARATIONS 140. The Applicants seek the following reliefs from the Court: i. Find the violation by the Republic of Senegal of the freedom of assembly and demonstration guaranteed by the provisions of Articles 8 and 10 of the Constitution of the Republic of Senegal, Articles 8 and 11 of the African Charter on Human Rights and Peoples, Articles 18§3 and 42