77. It is paramount to stress that the Court of Appeal did not hear the matter on sentencing for the first time and did not mete out the sentence of life imprisonment in an initial pronouncement. Furthermore, the Applicants have not shown that any provision of the relevant law targeted them personally or that the Court of Appeal adjudicated their appeal differently as compared to other litigants in the same or similar situation. 78. In light of the foregoing, this Court dismisses the Applicants’ claim and finds that the Respondent State did not violate the rights guaranteed under Article 3 of the Charter. VIII. REPARATIONS 79. The Applicants pray the Court to grant them reparations for the violations that they suffered including quashing the judgment of the Court of Appeal and setting them at liberty. 80. The Respondent State prays the Court to dismiss the Applicants’ request for reparations. *** 81. Article 27(1) of the Protocol provides that: If the Court finds that there has been violation of a human or peoples’ rights, it shall make appropriate orders to remedy the violation, including the payment of fair compensation or reparation. 82. In the instant case, since no violation has been established, the prayer for reparation is not justified. The Court, therefore, dismisses the Applicants’ prayer for reparation. 20