rights, it shall make appropriate orders to remedy the violation including the payment of the fair compensation or reparation. 87. The Court considers that for reparations to be granted, the Respondent State should, first, be internationally responsible for the wrongful act. Second, causation should be established between the wrongful act and the alleged prejudice. Furthermore, and where granted, reparation should cover the full damage suffered. It is also clear that it is always the Applicant that bears the onus of justifying the claims made.23 The Court has also held that the purpose of reparations is to restore the victim to the situation he/she would have been in but for the violation.24 A. Pecuniary reparations 88. The Applicant prays the Court to order the Respondent State to pay him compensation in the sum of Tanzanian Shillings One Million and Twenty Thousand (TZS1 020 000) for each of the eleven (11) years that he has been incarcerated. According to the Applicant, the aforementioned sum represents his loss of income from the sale of crops that has come about due to his imprisonment. * 89. The Respondent State prays the Court to dismiss the Applicant’s prayers for reparations. i. Material prejudice 90. The Court recalls that for it to grant reparations for material prejudice, there must be a causal link between the violation established by the Court and the prejudice caused and there should be a specification of the nature of the 23 See, Guehi v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 157. See also, Norbert Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (reparations) (5 June 2015) 1 AfCLR 258, §§ 20-31; Lohé Issa Konaté v. Burkina Faso (reparations) (3 June 2016) 1 AfCLR 346, §§ 52-59 and Reverend Christopher R. Mtikila v. United Republic of Tanzania (reparations) (13 June 2014) 1 AfCLR 72, §§ 27-29. 24 Lucien Ikili Rashidi v. United Republic of Tanzania (28 March 2019) 3 AfCLR 13, § 118 and Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (reparations), supra, § 60. 21