make appropriate orders to remedy the violation, including the payment of
fair compensation or reparation.”
90. In accordance with the Court’s jurisprudence, for reparations to be granted,
the Respondent State should first be responsible for the wrongful act.
Second, causation should be established between the wrongful act and the
alleged prejudice. Furthermore, where granted, reparations should cover
the full damage suffered.
91. The Court reiterates that the onus is on the Applicant to provide evidence in
support of their allegation.30 With regard to moral damages, the Court has
consistently held that it is presumed and that the requirement of proof is not
strict.31
92. The Court also restates that the measures that a State can take to remedy
a violation of human rights includes: restitution, compensation and
rehabilitation of the victim, as well as measures to ensure non-repetition of
the violations, considering the circumstances of each case.32
93. As this Court has earlier found, the Respondent State violated the
Applicant’s right to life and dignity, guaranteed under Article 4 and 5 of the
Charter, with regard to mandatory imposition of the death penalty and by
the use of hanging as the method of execution. The Court, therefore, finds
that the Respondent State’s responsibility has been established. The
prayers for reparations will, therefore, be examined against these findings.
30
Kennedy Gihana and Others v. Republic of Rwanda (merits and reparations) (28 November 2019) 3
AfCLR 655, § 139; See also Reverend Christopher R. Mtikila v. United Republic of Tanzania
(reparations) (13 June 2014) 1 AfCLR 72, § 40; Lohé Issa Konaté v. Burkina Faso (reparations) (3 June
2016) 1 AfCLR 346, § 15(d); and Elisamehe v. Tanzania (judgment), supra, § 97.
31 Rajabu and Others v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 136; Armand Guehi v. United
Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (7 December 2018) 2 AfCLR 477, § 55; Lucien Ikili
Rashidi v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (28 March 2019) 3 AfCLR 13, § 119;
Norbert Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (reparations), § 55.
32 Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v. Republic of Rwanda (reparations) (7 December 2018) 2 AfCLR 202, §
20. See also, Elisamehe v. Tanzania (judgment), supra, § 96.
23