ii. Moral prejudice 129. The Applicant does not expressly request the Court to grant reparations for moral prejudice. The Applicant simply prays the Court to grant him reparations. 130. The Respondent State maintains that the Applicant’s conviction and subsequent sentencing were a direct result of his own actions, thereby asserting that he should not be entitled to any form of reparations. *** 131. In line with established case-law that moral prejudice is presumed in cases of human rights violations, the Court notes that the quantum of damages in this respect is assessed based on equity, taking into account the circumstances of the case.46 132. The Court recalls its finding that the Respondent State has violated the Applicant’s right to free legal assistance by failing to avail him the services of counsel in the course of his trials in the domestic courts and his right to liberty by denying him the possibility of obtaining bail awaiting trial.47 133. The Court notes that the violation of the right to legal representation that it established caused moral prejudice to the Applicant in the circumstances of this case, and exercising its discretion, the Court therefore awards the Applicant the sum of Tanzanian Shillings three hundred thousand (TZS 300, 000) as adequate reparation of the moral prejudice he sustained as a result of the established violations. 46 Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (reparations), supra, § 55; Umuhoza v. Rwanda (reparations), supra, § 59; Christopher Jonas v. United Republic of Tanzania (reparations) (25 September 2020) 4 AfCLR 545, § 23. 47 See Paulo v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 107; Evarist v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 85. 32