enforce such remedies when granted.”(See also Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, G.A. Res. 60/147 (16 December 2005). 167. In this respect, the ICCPR specifically envisages compensation as an appropriate remedy in certain circumstances, such as in the case of the Applicant, unfair trial and conviction that led to his removal from office. The question remains, however, whether it is appropriate for this Court to grant the reliefs under this heading as prayed for by the Applicant, particularly award of financial compensation, as part of the remedy for the violations of his right to fair hearing. The jurisprudence of this Court reflects that the nature and form of the effective remedy should be proportional to the gravity of harm that is suffered. It was held in the case of MR. KPATCHA GNASSINGBE & ORS V. THE REPUBLIC OF TOGO (2013) CCJELR 141 that: “The ECOWAS Court of Justice does not have such a mechanism in the texts governing its mode of function, which would enable it to fix accurately the compensations to be awarded to Applicants who are victims of human rights violation. In the absence of assessing, calculating and determining the conditions for depositing applications for equitable satisfaction, the ECOWAS Court of Justice has opted for compensation of both material and moral damages based on allinclusive assessment of the harms suffered by an Applicant”. 168. In practice, the effective remedy accorded by this Court for violations of an accused’s human rights has been the assessment that “The principle of 68