116. The Court recalls its jurisprudence in Brahim Belghith v. Republic of Tunisia where it held that the absence of a Constitutional Court in the Respondent State constitutes an impediment to litigants bringing constitutional challenges.19 In the present case, the Court finds that the continued absence of a Constitutional Court constitutes an impediment to the Applicant’s ability to bring a constitutional challenge against Article 236 of the Respondent State’s Code of Criminal Procedure. 117. Consequently, the Court considers that the Respondent State violated the Applicant’s right to a fair trial, protected by Article 7(1)(a) of the Charter as read jointly with Article 14(1) of the ICCPR, insofar as it failed to afford her the avenue to challenge the constitutionality of Article 236 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. VIII. REPARATIONS 118. The Applicant prays the Court to order the Respondent State to pay her the following sums as reparation for material prejudice: i. Five Thousand (5,000) Tunisian dinars as reparation for the amount awarded her husband by the trial court; ii. Three Hundred (300) Tunisian dinars in respect of legal fees awarded her husband by the trial court; iii. One Thousand Five Hundred (1,500) Tunisian dinars as costs in respect of investigation, prosecution and appearance before the Hammamet Judicial Police Brigade; iv. Two Thousand Five Hundred (2,500) Tunisian dinars as costs relating to the misdemeanour case before the Grombalia court of first instance; v. Three Thousand Five Hundred (3,500) Tunisian dinars as costs in respect of the appeal proceedings before the Nabeul court; 19 Brahim Belghith v. Republic of Tunisia, 22 September 2022, Application No. 17/2021 (merits and reparations), §§ 95-102. 31