144. In the present Application, the Court has found that the Respondent State violated the Applicant’s right to life and right to dignity as guaranteed under Articles 4 and 5 of the Charter, respectively. The Court, therefore, finds that the Respondent State’s responsibility has been established. The Applicant is, therefore, entitled to reparations commensurate with the extent of the established violations. A. Pecuniary reparations i. Material prejudice 145. The Court recalls that for it to grant reparations for material prejudice, there must be a causal link between the violation established by the Court and the prejudice caused and there should be a specification of the nature of the prejudice and proof thereof.70 Further, this Court has held that an Applicant bears the burden of providing evidence to support his/her claims for material prejudice.71 146. In the instant case, the Applicant simply prays the Court to grant reparation in such amount as the Court deems fit. He does not indicate the nature of the material prejudice that he has suffered and how this is linked with the violation of his rights under Articles 4, and 5 of the Charter. In any event, the Applicant does not support his prayers with proof of the loss incurred. 147. In the circumstances, the Court, therefore, does not grant reparation for material prejudice to the Applicant. 70 Nguza Viking (Babu Seya) and Another v. United Republic of Tanzania (reparations) (8 May 2020) 4 AfCLR 3, §15 and Kijiji Isiaga v. Republic of Tanzania, AfCtHPR, Application No. 011/2015, Judgment of 25 June 2021 (reparations), § 20. 71 Msuguri v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 122; Elisamehe v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 97 and Guehi v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 15. 41