116. The Court recalls its earlier judgments and reiterates its position that, “to
examine and assess Applications for reparation of prejudices resulting from
human rights violations, it takes into account the principle according to
which the State found guilty of an internationally wrongful act is required to
make full reparation for the damaged caused to the victim.”20
117. In the present case, the Court found a violation by the Respondent State of
the Applicants’ rights under Article 7(1)(d) of the Charter.
118. The Court also recalls 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”.21
119. The Court stresses that measures that a State may take to redress a human
rights violation may include restitution, compensation and rehabilitation of
the victim, measures of satisfaction, as well as measures to ensure nonrepetition of violations, taking into account the circumstances of each
case”.22
120. The Court recalls that the general rule in matters of material damage is that
there must be a causal link between the alleged violation and the prejudice
caused, and the burden of proof is on the Applicant who has to justify his
prayers.23
121. The Court has also established that there is no need to prove moral
prejudice as the latter is assumed once a violation is established in favour
20
Mohamed Abubakari v. United Republic of Tanzania (reparations) (2019) 3 AfCLR 334, § 19; Alex
Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania (reparations) (2019) 3 AfCLR 287, § 11; Lucien Ikili Rashidi v.
United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (2019) 3 AfCLR 13, § 19; Ingabire Victoire
Umuhoza v. Republic of Rwanda (reparations) (2018) 2 AfCLR 202, § 19.
21 Abubakari v. Tanzania (reparations), supra, § 20; Thomas v. Tanzania (reparations), supra, § 12;
Umuhoza v. Rwanda (reparations), supra, § 20; Rashidi v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, §
118.
22Abubakari v. Tanzania (reparations), supra, § 21; Thomas v. Tanzania (reparations), supra, § 13;
Umuhoza v. Rwanda (reparations), supra, § 20.
23 Reverend 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; Abubakari
v. Tanzania (reparations), supra, § 22; Thomas v. Tanzania (reparations), supra, § 14.
29