367. The Court reiterates that the general rule with regard to material prejudice is that there must be a causal link between the established violation and the prejudice suffered by the Applicant and the onus is on the Applicant to provide evidence to justify his prayers.106 With regard to moral prejudice, the Court exercises judicial discretion in equity. 368. In its understanding of a “victim/s” of human rights violations, the Court remains alive to the fact that the notion of “victim” is not limited to individuals and that, subject to certain conditions, groups and communities may be entitled to reparations meant to address collective harm.107 369. In the instant case, the Court has established that the Respondent State violated the rights under Articles 2, 4, 5, 7(1), 16, 17(1) of the Charter and Article 29 of the Children’s Charter in relation to PWA. 370. It is in relation to these findings that the Court will consider the Applicants’ prayers for reparation. 371. The Court notes that the Applicants have made 11 prayers on reparations, but it has decided to group them into the following categories: Pecuniary reparations, and non-pecuniary reparations. A. Pecuniary reparations i. Material prejudice 372. The Applicants pray the Court for an order for the Respondent State to set up a compensation fund, and that a committee of government officials, civil society representatives, PWA or their representatives is set up, to identify victims of attacks and compensate them accordingly from the fund. 106 Christopher Mtikila v. Republic of Tanzania (reparations) (13 June 2014) 1 AfCLR 72, § 40; Lohé Issa Konaté v. Burkina Faso (reparations) (3 June 2016) 1 AfCLR, § 15. 107 African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v. Kenya, ACtHPR, Application No. 006/2012, Judgment of 23 June 2022 (reparations), § 60. 84