material prejudice he suffered and how this is linked with the violation of his rights under the Charter. * 137. For its part, the Respondent State reiterated its prayer that the Applicant’s request be dismissed. *** 138. Given the Applicant’s failure to first, specify his material prejudice, and second, to prove the same, the Court dismisses the prayer for reparations for material prejudice. ii. Moral prejudice 139. The Applicant does not expressly request the Court to grant reparations for moral prejudice; he simply prays for the Court to grant him reparations. * 140. The Respondent State submits that the Applicant’s conviction and subsequent sentencing were a result of his actions and therefore he is not entitled to any reparations. *** 141. In line with its established case law, moral prejudice is presumed in cases of human rights violation. In this case, the Court notes, the quantum of damages is assessed based on equity, taking into account the circumstances of the case.48 142. In the instant Application, the Court finds that the Applicant suffered violations which involve moral prejudice. These include imposition of the mandatory death penalty and the time he continues to spend on death row 48 Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (reparations), supra, § 55; Umuhoza v. Rwanda (reparations), supra, § 59; Christopher Jonas v. Tanzania (reparations), supra, § 23. 33