004{{ 0 9. ln my opinion, by taklag into account the random nature of a project which has nat yet seen the light of day, on the one hand, and the arnounts claimed and granted in retation to the ongoing prosperous projects which have lasted for several years, sn the other, it would have been reassnable to grant the Applicant, fcr reparations of the prejudice resulling frsm the loss of business oppofiunities, an arnount significanly lower than the one granted in relation to his existing and aperational proiects" ll. Reparation of moral prejudice suffered by the Applicant 10. The Appiicant contends, and the Court notes correctly, that he suffered moral prejudi*e on two accounts [paragraphs 83 to 87; 91J. First of all, as a result of the damage to his reputation and his irnage, as a71 important political figure and a successful businessman et the national and international level, following the criminal proceedings instituted against him for drug trafficking, and in the end following his sentence to twenty year$ imprisonment. $ecsndly, as a result of the moral suffering he undenruent, made of sadness, anxiety and disarray in seeing his enterprises destrqyed and living in exile, as well as the fear to be imprisoned for a period of twenty year$. " Considering these two aspects, the Applicant claims pecuniary reparation qf an alnountof One Hundred Billion (100 000 0C0 S00) CFA Francs [paragraph 87], butthe Court grants hlm a lump surn of Three Billion (3 000 000 000) CFA Francs [paragraph 951. ln this regard, the Court hslds that "the arnount of the reparation to award the Applicant in the instant ca$e, must be comrnen$urate with the gravity of lhe charge levelled against him and the degree of humiliation and moral suffering he rnust have 1 t endured as a busine$sman and politician, president of the Employers' Association and a candidate who ranked 3rd in the 2016 presidential election in his country" [paragraph g4 of the JudgernentJ. 12. l* my opinion, this amount, though clearly less than what the Applicant claimed, remaing excesgive, taking into conpideration the circumstances of the case. Regarding the prciudlce resulfing fi'om ffie damage fo his image and firs reputation as a palifreran and businessrnan, this was essentially repaired through the judgernent of this Court on the rnerits of the case on 2$ hiarch 2019 lparagraph 2S2 xxii] which ordered the Respondent $tate to annuljudgemerrt No. S0713C.COR rendered on 18 October 2018 by CRIff so as to erase all its effects. The Courl itself recognises '"such a measure as a $ource of nroral satisfaction" lparagraph S?tr, but in my opinion" does not draw all the consequences thereof. ln fact, the inrage and reputation of the Applicant, which had been larnished by the cases on drug trafficking and the sentence which followed were completely restored in the eyes of his partners, following the above rnentioned judgement of this CIourt, ordering the annulment of the sentence. And the material prejudice resulting 3