000936 89.The Court further notes that the Applicant did not adduce any evidence to support his claim for reparations. He merely enumerates them. The Court thus rejects the prayer for one (1) billion Tanzanian shillings as it was not substantiated. 90. The Court however, notes that the violation it established caused moral prejudice to the Applicant and therefore, in exercising its discretion, awards an amount of Tanzania Shillings Three Hundred Thousand (TZS 300,000) as fair compensation.2T B. Non-pecuniary Reparation 91. The Applicant prays lhe Court to order his release from prison 92.The Respondent State prays the Court to hold that the Applicant was lav'rfully sentenced and should thus dismiss his prayer for release. 93. Regarding the order for release prayed by the Applicant, the Court has stated that it can be ordered only in specific and compelling circumstances.zs This would be the case "if an Applicant sufficiently demonstrates or the Court by itself establishes from its findings that the Applicant's arrest or conviction is based entirely on arbitrary considerations and his continued imprisonment would occasion a miscarriage of justice."2e 2i See Application No. 020/2016. Judgment of 2110912018 (Merits and Reparations), Anaclet Paulo v United Republicof Tanzania, S 107, Application No. 02712015. Judgmentof 2110912018 (Merits and Reparations), Minani Evaist v United Republic of Tanzania, S 85. Alex Thomas v Tanzania (Merits) op cit., S 157, Diocles William v Tanzania (Merits), E 101; Minani Evarist v Tanzania (Merits and Reparations), S 82, Application No. 006/2016. Judgment ot 0711212Q18 (Merits), Mgosi Mwita v tJnited Republic of Tanzania, S 8a; Kijiji lsiaga v Tanzania (Merits), 5 96; Armand Guehi v Tanzania (Merits and Reparations), $164. 2eMinani Evaist v Tanzania (Merits and Reparations), S 82 28 23