established and the loss. No proof of the claimed monthly earnings was lodged with the Court to support their assertions. 128. The Court, therefore, dismisses the Applicants’ claims for reparations for material prejudice. ii. Moral prejudice 129. In respect of moral prejudice, the Applicants claim that they suffered “harm, pain and suffering, including mental anguish, humiliation and sense of injustice”, for which they seek compensation. Specifically, they point out that they have suffered eighteen (18) years imprisonment as well as complete disruption of their lives due to their incarceration. The Applicants also claim the sum of Thirty Thousand United States Dollars (US$30 000) for themselves and Eight Thousand Unites States Dollars (US$8 000) for each indirect victim as reparations for the moral prejudice suffered. * 130. Without specifically addressing the Applicants’ claims for reparations for moral prejudice, the Respondent State prayed the Court to dismiss the Applicants’ claim. *** 131. The Court recalls its case-law where it has held that moral prejudice is presumed in cases of human rights violations and the quantum of damages in this respect is assessed based on equity, taking into account the circumstances of the case.51 One option that the Court has utilised in this connection has been to grant a lump sum.52 Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (reparations), supra, § 55; Umuhoza v. Rwanda (reparations), supra, § 59; Jonas v. Tanzania, supra, § 23. 52 Rashidi v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 119; Evarist v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § § 8485; Guehi v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 177. 51 33