*** 93. The Court observes that the Applicant seeks reparations for guarantees of non-repetition of the violations in relation to his individual case. This Court has previously observed that such measures are usually aimed at eradicating structural and systemic human rights violations. However, such remedies can also be relevant to individual cases, where there is evidence that the violation will not cease or is likely to occur again. Such cases include when the Respondent State has challenged, or failed to comply with earlier findings and orders of the Court.39 94. The Court notes that the Applicant does not substantiate this prayer. Furthermore, there is no evidence on file that the violation found will not cease, is likely to occur again regarding the Applicant and there had been no previous finding or order in respect of the present Application. Besides, findings of the Court in this judgment sufficiently address the violation established. 95. Consequently, the prayer for the guarantee of non-repetition regarding the Applicant is dismissed. 96. Having stated that, the relevance of guaranteeing non repetition regarding provision of legal aid extends beyond the individual situation of the Applicant as arises in the present Application. In this regard, the Court recalls that it had previously found violation regarding the right to free legal assistance. It had observed that the Respondent State’s Legal Aid Act 2017 is not fully aligned with its previous judgments and the Charter in respect of the right to free legal assistance.40 The Court therefore deems it necessary to make an order in this regard, and thus Orders the Respondent State to take all constitutive and legislative measures to amend the Legal Aid Act 2017 in order to fully align it with the Respondent State’s international obligations as reflected in the Charter and ICCPR. 39 40 See Mtikila v. Tanzania (reparations), supra, § 43. See § 87 above. 26