violations, compounded by overall inhuman and degrading circumstances, inherently involve moral prejudice. The Court further observes that in the instant Application, while the death sentence was subsequently commuted to life imprisonment, the Applicant has inevitably suffered prejudice from the established violations caused by the very imposition of the mandatory death sentence and time spent on death row. 191. In light of the foregoing, the Court holds that the Applicant is entitled to moral damages as there is a presumption that he has suffered some form of moral prejudice as a result of the above-mentioned violations. The Court has held that the assessment of quantum in cases of moral prejudice must be done in fairness and taking into account the circumstances of the case.87 The practice of the Court, in such instances, is to award lump sums for moral loss.88 192. The Court has also previously held that a judgment finding violation of rights protected in the Charter forms part of reparations.89 In the instant case, the Court found a violation of Articles 4, 5, and 7(1) of the Charter, and took judicial notice that the Applicant had already been removed from the death row following the presidential pardon through which his death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. The Court thus considers that, in the particular circumstances of this Application, its findings of violation constitute substantial reparation as they significantly address the main breach alleged by the Applicant. 193. Having said that, the Court considers that, as fairness requires, an assessment of moral prejudice should take into account the period of eight 87 Juma v. Tanzania (judgment), supra, § 144; Viking and Another v. Tanzania (reparations), supra, § 41 and Umuhoza v. Rwanda (reparations), supra, § 59. 88 Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (reparations), supra, §§ 61-62 and Guehi v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 177. 89 Andrew Ambrose Cheusi v. United Republic of Tanzania (judgment) (26 June 2020) 4 AfCLR 219, § 173; Armand Guéhi v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (7 December 2018) 2 AfCLR 477, § 194; Reverend Christopher Mtikila v. United Republic of Tanzania (reparations) (13 June 2014) 1 AfCLR 72, § 45. 54