124. The Court also restates that the measures that a State must take to remedy a violation of human rights includes restitution, compensation and rehabilitation of the victim, as well as measures to ensure non-repetition of the violations, taking into account the circumstances of each case.44 125. In the instant case, the Court has established that the Respondent State has violated the Applicant’s right to bail contrary to Article 6 of the Charter and legal representation under Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter as read together with Article 14(3)(d) of the ICCPR by failing to provide him with free legal assistance during their trial and appeals in the domestic courts. A. Pecuniary reparations i. Material prejudice 126. 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.45 127. In the instant case, the Applicant simply prayed the Court to grant him reparations in accordance with Article 27 of the Protocol, without specifying the nature of the pecuniary reparations sought. He has not indicated the nature of the material prejudice he suffered and how this is linked with the violation of his right to legal assistance under Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter. 128. In the circumstances, the Court therefore dismisses the prayer for reparations for material prejudice. 44 Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v. Republic of Rwanda (reparations) (7 December 2018) 2 AfCLR 202, § 20. See also Elisamehe v. Tanzania, ibid, § 96. 45 Kijiji Isiaga v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application n° 011/2015, Judgment of 25 June 2021 (reparations), § 20. 31