B. Non-pecuniary reparations i. Restoration of liberty 134. The Applicant prays the Court to quash his conviction and sentence and restore his liberty. He also prays the Court to set aside the sentence imposed on him and order his release from prison. 135. The Respondent State maintains that the Applicant’s prayer for release should be dismissed as he is serving a lawful sentence imposed on him in accordance with its laws. It also reiterates that that ordering the release of the Applicant is not within the mandate of the Court. *** 136. Regarding the Applicant’s prayer to set aside his conviction, the Court recalls that it is not an appellate court and thus, in principle, it does not quash the conviction decision of domestic courts. 137. Regarding the Applicant’s request for an order for release, the Court recalls that it can only make such order in compelling circumstances. The Court notes that its finding of a violation in the present Application only pertains to lack of legal representation during trial and the right to liberty and does not, therefore, affect the conviction of the Applicant. Without minimising the gravity of the violation, the Court considers that the nature of the violation in the instant case does not reveal any circumstance that signifies that the Applicant’s imprisonment amounts to a miscarriage of justice or an arbitrary decision. The Applicant also failed to elaborate on specific and compelling circumstances to justify the order for his release.48 The prayer for release 48 Mangaya v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 97; Elisamehe v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 112; and Evarist v. Tanzania (merits), ibid, § 82. 33