163. The Applicants assert that today they have all aged, that they are tired and frustrated owing to the Respondent State’s bad faith. For all this moral damage they pray the Court to award each of the two Applicants the sum of Five Hundred Million (500,000,000) CFA Francs. * 164. The Respondent State contends that it did not violate any of the Applicants’ rights and therefore the Applicants did not suffer any damage. The Respondent Sate prays the Court to dismiss the claim for moral damage. *** 165. The Court recalls its jurisprudence that there is a presumption of moral prejudice suffered by an applicant when the Court finds that his rights have been violated, such that there is no need to seek to establish the link between the violation and the harm suffered. The Court has also held that the assessment of the amounts to be awarded as reparation for moral damage should be made on equitable basis taking into account the circumstances of each case.29 166. In the instant case, the damage suffered by each of the Applicants results from the Court’s finding of a violation of their right to execution of a court decision guaranteed in Article 7(1)(d) of the Charter. 167. Accordingly, the Court awards the Applicants the lump sum of Three Million (3,000,000) CFA Francs as reparation for the moral harm they suffered. 29 Ajavon v. Benin (reparations) (2019), supra, § 89; Kobena Fory v. Côte d'Ivoire (merits and reparations), supra, § 102. 39