67. Furthermore, in the special circumstances of this case, whereby the Respondent
State has not raised any objection, the Court does not see any reason as to why it should
not grant the symbolic reparation claimed by MBDHP as reparation for the moral prejudice
it suffered. Accordingly, the Court further grants the claim made by the Applicants for one
(1) symbolic CFA Franc to be paid to MBDHP.
C. Claims for reparation for material prejudice
68. In their Brief on Reparations and,
once again, in regard to
MBDHP, the Applicants
claimed “reimbursement of the expenses incurred between 1998 and 2013, for organizing
demonstrations,
particularly the International
Day Against
Impunity organized
on 13
December of each year, both to force the authorities to track down the perpetrators of the
assassination of the journalist and his companions and to rally the people of Burkina Faso
to support the families
of the beneficiaries”, that is, the amount of forty-five million seven
hundred and thirty-four thousand seven hundred and five (45,734,705) CFAF .
69. Furthermore,
in their letter dated
17 November 2014 submitted in Response, the
Applicants rejected the claim according to which “the State of Burkina Faso contributes
financially and yearly to the functioning of the MBDHP [Burkinabe Movement on Human
and Peoples’ Rights] just like other associations".
According to them, since its creation
on
received
any
financial
State
argued
that
19
February
1989,
the
MBDHP
has
never
contribution
whatsoever from the authorities.
70,
In
its
Brief
in
Response,
the
Respondent
the
claim
for
reimbursement of the costs incurred for organising demonstrations has no material or
legal grounds, for the following reasons:
(i) the MBDHP
has been existing well before the matter of Norbert Zongo and has
organized demonstrations not related to this matter;
(ii) Burkina Faso contributes financially and yearly to
the running of the MBDHP,
other associations?’;
*” As earlier indicated (para.
69), the Applicants categorically reject this allegation
23
like