the alleged prejudice. Furthermore, and where it is granted, reparation should cover the full damage suffered.43 133. The Court reiterates that the onus is on the Applicant to provide evidence to justify his prayers, particularly for material damages.44 With regard to moral damages, the Court has held that the requirement of proof is not strict,45 since it is presumed that there is prejudice caused when violations are established.46 134. The Court also restates that the measures that a State may take to remedy a violation of human rights include restitution, compensation, and rehabilitation of the victim, as well as measures to ensure non-repetition of the violations, taking into account the circumstances of each case.47 135. In this instant case, the Court has established that the Respondent State’s conduct has violated the Applicant’s right to life and right to dignity only. It is in respect of these violations, therefore, that the Court must assess the reparations due. A. Pecuniary reparations i. Material prejudice 136. The Applicant simply prayed the Court to grant him reparations in accordance with Article 27 of the Protocol, without specifying the nature of the pecuniary reparations sought. He has not indicated the nature of the 43 Rajabu and Others v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 136; Guehi v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 55; Lucien Ikili Rashidi v. United Republic of Tanzania of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (28 March 2019) 3 AfCLR 13, § 119. 44 Kennedy Gihana and Others v. Republic of Rwanda (merits and reparations) (28 November 2019) 3 AfCLR 655, § 139. 45 Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (reparations), supra, § 55. See also Elisamehe v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 97. 46 Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (reparations), Ibid. 47 Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v. Republic of Rwanda (reparations) (7 December 2018) 2 AfCLR 202, § 20. 32