iii. Release him from prison as a retrial would be fraught with practical difficulties given the passage of time since the alleged offence and it would be grossly unfair to him to remain in custody pending a retrial given the extensive period of time in which he has already been incarcerated; and iv. Pay reparations in such amount as the Court deems fit. He submits that he has suffered severe hardships as a result of the breach of his rights under the Charter and subsequent twelve (12) years of imprisonment, including seven (7) years on death row which has also severely impacted his family life. 141. In Response to the Applicant’s submission on reparations, the Respondent State prays the Court for the following: i. That the Applicant continue to serve his sentence; and ii. That all the reliefs sought by the Applicant be denied. *** 142. The Court recalls Article 27(1) of the Protocol which provides that: If the Court finds that there has been violation of a human or peoples’ rights, it shall make appropriate orders to remedy the violation including the payment of the fair compensation or reparation. 143. The Court considers that, as it has consistently held, for reparations to be granted, the Respondent State should first be internationally responsible of the wrongful act and causation should be established between the wrongful act and the alleged prejudice.68 Furthermore, and where granted, reparation should cover the full damage suffered. It is also clear that it is always the Applicant that bears the onus of justifying the claims made.69 68 XYZ v. Republic of Benin (judgment) (27 November 2020) 4 AfCLR 49, § 158 and Sébastien Germain Ajavon v. Republic of Benin (reparations) (28 November 2019) 3 AfCLR 196, § 17. 69 Juma v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 141; Norbert Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (reparations) (5 June 2015) 1 AfCLR 258, §§ 20-31; and Reverend Christopher R. Mtikila v. United Republic of Tanzania (reparations) (13 June 2014) 1 AfCLR 72, §§ 27-29. 40