violation of his rights is entitled to just and equitable reparation". 46. This can be retained by this Court, in this case that the total reparation is impossible on matters of Human Rights Violation; however, it is important to award reparation that is equitable in nature to all the Applicants that are entitling to it. Thus, as a result of the facts and elements of the case, it behoves on the court to have a sufficient evaluation and award of reparation that is inclusive of the prejudice suffered by the ten Applicants due to the unique nature of their detention which is unlawful as ruled above. 47. It is proper to state that the Supplementary Protocol of the Court does not provide for reparation in its Articles 9 and 10; the Rules of this Court only retained the principle of measures of redress. However, Article 19 ( 1) of the 1991 Protocol of the Court authorized the application of Article 38 (1) × The Court, whose function is to decide in accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to it, shall apply: a. international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states; b. international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law; c. the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations; d. subject to the provisions of Article 59, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law. of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, such as (International Law and the Court of Civilized Nations). This provision allows the Court to rule as it has done in this case in respect of the same inclusive amount to the concerned Applicants. 48. Indeed, and in the words of Aristotle: "what the judge wants is to ensure that the parties are equal in the sanction to be imposed, whereby she retrieves from the aggressor all what he must have acquired. The equality is thus a means between the winner and loser. But gain and loss are more or less opposite, so also more good and less evil constitutes gain, and more evil and less good constitute a loss. Equality which we are trying to apply is simply seen as the intermediary between the two". It is thus proper to award the ten (10) Applicants who suffered unlawful detention an exclusive amount of US $42, 720 each for all the prejudices and violations against them by the 1st Defendant which is the Federal Republic of Nigeria and represented by 2nd Defendant, the Attorney General and all the defendants jointly and severally. Decision 49. Whereas the provisions on statute of limitations stipulated in Article 9(3) [sic] of the Supplementary Protocol of the Court do not apply to the instant case; the Court declares that the action of the Applicants is admissible. 50. Whereas the detention of the Applicants by the Defendants from 1 December 2003 to 1 March 2004 is justified by the necessities of preliminary inquiry; the Court considers that such detention is not of a wrongful nature, but nevertheless, the continuing detention of the 10 Applicants after the judicial decision of 1 March 2004, as well as the criminal proceedings brought against them from 2 March 2004 to 30 November 2005 are malicious and wrongful, and constitute a violation of the human rights of the Applicants, in accordance with Article 6 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights as well as Article 35 × (1) Every person shall be entitled to his personal liberty and no person shall be deprived of such liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure permitted by law - (a) in execution of the sentence or order of a court in respect of a criminal offence of which he has been found guilty; (b) by reason of his failure to comply with the order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation imposed upon him by law; (c) for the purpose of bringing him before a court in execution of the order of a court or upon reasonable suspicion of his having committed a criminal offence, or to such extent as may be reasonably necessary to prevent his committing a criminal offence; (d) in the case of a person who has not attained the age of eighteen years for the purpose of his education or welfare; (e) in the case of persons suffering from infectious or contagious disease, persons of unsound mind, persons addicted to drugs or 13

Select target paragraph3