B. Non-pecuniary reparations 128. The Court observes that the Second Applicant prays that justice should be restored where it was overlooked while the Respondent State generally prays that no reparation should be awarded to the Applicants. 129. The Court is of the view that, in this judgment, its findings of violation under Article 15(1) of the ICCPR, and Article 17(3) of the ACERWC as read jointly with Article 40(1) of the CRC requires that remedial measures are considered to redress these violations. i. Guarantees of non-repetition 130. The Court considers that the established violation of Article 15(1) of the ICCPR owing to the Respondent State’s failure to consider the newly enacted more lenient sentence caused a personal prejudice to the Second Applicant. The same applies to the findings on Article 17(3) of the ACERWC as read jointly with Article 40(1) of the CRC regarding the lack of consideration of the Second Applicant’s age in the sentencing process. 131. The Court notes, notwithstanding the above, that its earlier finding in this judgment that corporal punishment contravenes the Charter requires a remedial order that the concerned provisions of the Respondent State’s laws be amended. Such order is also warranted because the prejudice caused by the Respondent State’s failure extends beyond the Second Applicant as it bears on provisions of domestic law that affects actual or potential offenders at large. 132. In light of these considerations, the Court orders the Respondent State to amend all provisions of its criminal law including its Interpretation Act to align them with its international obligations including Articles 15(1) of the ICCPR, 17(3) of the ACERWC, and 40(1) of the CRC. 33