137. Furthermore, as regards the requirement relating to a citizen’s abilities, the Court notes that, as regards access to higher education, Article 125 of the Law of 12 July 2010 takes into account the officer’s years of experience, length of service and rank, which is fully in compliance with the provisions of Article 13(2)(c) of the ICESCR. 138. The Court finds, therefore, that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicants’ right of access to higher education protected under Articles 17(1) of the Charter, 13(2)(c) of the ICESCR and 1 of the UNESCO Convention against discrimination in education by implementing Article 125 of the Law of 12 July 2010. VIII. REPARATIONS 139. Article 27(1) of the Protocol provides as follows: If the Court finds that there has been violation of a human or peoples’ right, it shall make appropriate orders to remedy the violation, including the payment of fair compensation or reparation. 140. The Court notes that in the present case, no violation has been found, so that there is no need to consider prayers made by the Parties or order any reparations. IX. COSTS 141. The Applicants pray the Court to order the Respondent State to bear the costs. ** 142. The Respondent State prays the Court to order the Applicants to bear the full costs. 31