124. The Applicant submits that an amount of United States Dollar One Hundred and Thirty Thousand ($130,000) is sufficient for his mother who suffered as an indirect victim. * 125. The Respondent State did not make any submissions on this claim. *** 126. The Court notes that the Applicant has failed to adduce documentary proof to show filiation such as birth certificates for his mother or any equivalent proof, nor has he provided evidence of the material prejudice claimed, such as receipts. 127. The Court thus dismisses the prayer of the Applicant herein. iii. Moral prejudice 128. The Applicant submits that this Court, in Reverend Christopher Mtikila v. Tanzania, defined moral damages as damages that do not occasion economic loss but rather which cover suffering and afflictions caused to the victim emotional distress of the family members and nonmaterial changes in the living conditions of the victim and his family. 129. The Applicant further avers that, in Maria del Carmen v. Uruguay, the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights has held that no evidence is required to prove the grave impact on the mental and emotional well-being of the direct victim, because in the event of gross violations of human rights, emotional injury is inevitable. 130. The Applicant submits that he suffered tremendous stress from unsuccessful appeals both at the High Court and Court of Appeal of the Respondent State which did not consider all evidence and irregularities. It is the Applicant’s contention that the suffering experienced encompasses 32