379. Given the fact that the violations affect a particular group of the population, the Court orders the Respondent State to establish a compensation fund, within and in consultation with the Applicants and representatives of PWA, identify victims of attacks and compensate them according to the extent of the prejudice suffered.109 Furthermore, that the fund also be used for advocacy purposes to raise awareness regarding the plight of PWA. ii. Moral prejudice 380. During the public hearing, the Applicants prayed the Court for moral damages to compensate the victims for the suffering including the psychological harm, anguish, grief, sadness, distress, fear, frustration, anxiety, inconvenience, humiliation and reputational harm posed by the violation. 381. Citing the Court’s decisions in Zongo v. Burkina Faso and Konate v. Burkina Faso, the Applicants aver that PWA and their families have suffered incalculable harm as a result of the Respondent State’s failure to protect them. 382. In line with the jurisprudence of the Court, the Applicants pray the Court to award moral damages to the victims for the pain and suffering that they and their families have undergone owing to the violations of their rights. 383. The Respondent State prays the Court to reject the prayers for reparations. *** 384. The Court notes that moral prejudice is that which results from the suffering, anguish and changes in the living conditions of the victim and his family. 110 As the Court has established in this judgment that the rights of the PWA Ligue Ivorienne des Droits de l’Homme and Others v. Côte d’Ivoire, supra, § 215. Mtikila v. Tanzania (reparations), supra, § 34; Cheusi v. Tanzania (judgment), supra, § 150 and Nguza Viking and Another v. Tanzania (reparations)(8 May 2020) 4 AfCLR 3, § 38. 109 110 86