i. An amount of USD 72,000 for moral prejudice; ii. An amount of USD 115,200 for material prejudice; iii. Non-repetition by the Respondent State; iv. The Respondent State reports back to Court every six months until implementation of orders is finalised; v. To set aside both his conviction and sentence; and vi. The Respondent State to immediately release him from prison. * 73. The Respondent State did not respond to the Applicants submission on reparations. *** 74. The Court recalls Article 27(1) of the Protocol which provides that: If the Court finds that there has been violation of a human or peoples’ rights, it shall make appropriate orders to remedy the violation including the payment of the fair compensation or reparation. 75. The Court considers that, as it has consistently held, for reparations to be granted, the Respondent State should first be internationally responsible of the wrongful act and causation should be established between the wrongful act and the alleged prejudice.30 Furthermore, and where granted, reparation should cover the full damage suffered; and the Applicant bears the onus of justifying the claims made.31 76. In the present Application, the Court has established that the Respondent State has violated the Applicant’s right to defence under Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter as read together with Article 14(3)(d) of the ICCPR by failing to provide him with free legal assistance during his trial and appeals in the 30 XYZ v. Republic of Benin (reparations) (27 November 2020) 4 AfCLR 49, § 158 and Sébastien Germain Ajavon v. Republic of Benin (reparations) (28 November 2019) 3 AfCLR 196, § 17. 31 Juma v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 141; Norbert Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (reparations) (5 June 2015) 1 AfCLR 258, §§ 20-31; and Reverend Christopher R. Mtikila v. United Republic of Tanzania (reparations) (13 June 2014) 1 AfCLR 72, §§ 27-29. 21