ii. Moral prejudice 216. The Applicants pray the Court to order the Respondent State to pay a token one (1) CFA franc as reparation for the moral prejudice suffered by the Applicants. * 217. The Respondent State did not submit on this point. *** 218. The Court recalls its constant jurisprudence that presumes the occurrence of moral damage in case of a violation of human rights.75 In fact, moral damage can be considered an inevitable consequence of the violation, without the need to prove it by any other means.76 219. The Court also notes that the determination of the amount to be awarded for moral damage is made on the basis of equity, taking into account the circumstances of each case.77 220. The Court finds that having established the violations, there is no reason why it should not grant the symbolic one CFA franc requested by the Applicants as reparation for moral prejudice. 221. Accordingly, the Court grants the Applicants’ request to be paid a symbolic franc as reparation for the moral prejudice suffered and orders the Respondent State to pay to each Applicant a token one CFA franc. b. Non-pecuniary reparations 222. The Applicants make several submissions on reparations to the Court, 75 Guéhi, supra, § 55 ; Konaté (reparations), supra, § 58. Zongo (reparations), supra, § 55; Konaté (reparations), supra, § 58. 77 Zongo, ibid, § 55; Konaté, ibid, § 58; Guéhi, ibid, § 55. 76 54