92. The Court also restates that reparations “…must, as far as possible, erase all the consequences of the wrongful act and restore the state which would presumably have existed if that act had not been committed.”19 93. Measures that a State may take to remedy a violation of human rights include: 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.20 94. The Court further reiterates that the general rule with regard to material prejudice is that there must be a causal link between the established violation and the prejudice suffered by the Applicant and the onus is on the Applicant to provide evidence to justify his prayers.21 With regard to moral prejudice, the Court exercises judicial discretion in equity. A. Pecuniary Reparations 95. The Applicant did not make specific submissions on pecuniary reparations. 96. The Respondent State prays the Court to dismiss the Applicant’s prayers for reparations. *** 97. The Court notes that the purpose of reparations is to erase the consequences of the wrongful act and restore the victim to his or her position prior to the occurrence of the violation. 19Mohamed Abubakari v. United Republic of Tanzania (reparations) (4 July 2019) 3 AfCLR 334, § 21; Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania (reparations) (4 July 2019) 3 AfCLR 287, § 12; Wilfred Onyango Nganyi and 9 others v. United Republic of Tanzania (reparations) (4 July 2019) 3 AfCLR 308, § 16. 20 Umuhoza v. Rwanda (reparations), supra, § 20. 21 Christopher R. Mtikila v. United Republic of Tanzania (reparations) (13 June 2014) 1 AfCLR 72, § 40; Lohé Issa Konaté v. Burkina Faso (reparations) (3 June 2016) 1 AfCLR 346, § 15. 21