VIII. REPARATIONS 147. The Applicant prays the Court to quash both the conviction and sentence, order his release from prison; and compensate him for loss of earnings from his livelihood. * 148. On its part, the Respondent State prays the Court to dismiss the Applicant’s prayers for reparations in their entirety on the grounds that they are baseless since the Court has no jurisdiction to quash and set aside the conviction. *** 149. The Court notes that Article 27(1) of the Protocol stipulates that “[lf] 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.” 150. As it has consistently held, the Court considers that, for reparations to be granted, the Respondent State found guilty of an internationally wrongful act is required to make full reparation for the damage caused to the victim.59 Second, causation should be established between the wrongful act and the alleged prejudice. Furthermore, and where it is granted, reparation should cover the full damage suffered. Finally, the Applicant bears the onus to justify the claims made.60 151. The Court also restates that the measures that a State could take to remedy a violation of human rights can include restitution, compensation and 59 Sadick Marwa Kisase v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 005/2016, Judgment of 2 December 2021, § 88; Wilfred Onyango Nganyi and 9 others v. United Republic of Tanzania (reparations) (4 July 2019) 3 AfCLR 308, § 13; Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v. Republic of Rwanda (reparations) (7 December 2018) 2 AfCLR 202, § 19; Munthali v. Republic of Malawi, supra, § 108. 60 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, §§ 2729. 41