98. In the instant case, the Court recalls that its only finding of violation against the Respondent State relates to the failure to avail him free legal assistance in the course of domestic courts. 99. The Court notes that the violation established caused moral prejudice to the Applicant and therefore, in exercising its discretion in equity, awards him Tanzanian Shillings Three Hundred Thousand (TZS 300,000) as fair compensation.22 B. Non-Pecuniary Reparations 100. The Applicant prays the Court to order: i. His release from prison; ii. A retrial of his case; and iii. Any other remedy that the Court may deem fit. 101. The Respondent State submits that the Court has no jurisdiction to order the release of the Applicant. It, therefore, prays the Court to reject this prayer. i. On the prayer for release 102. As regards the prayer for release, the Court has held that this measure can only be ordered in specific and compelling circumstances. This would be the case “if an Applicant sufficiently demonstrates or the Court by itself establishes from its findings that the Applicant’s arrest or conviction is based entirely on arbitrary considerations and his continued imprisonment would occasion a miscarriage of justice.”23 22 See Anaclet Paulo v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (21 September 2018) 2 AfCLR 446, § 107; Evarist v Tanzania (merits), supra, § 85. 23 Evarist v. Tanzania (merits), ibid, § 82. 22