Guardian, The Nation and the Punch also in the 3 televisions stations; The Channels, NTA and AIT. 97. From the above declarations and orders sought by the Applicant, the Court notes that the totality of declarations 2, 3,4,5,6, prayed the court to make pronouncements on the appropriateness or otherwise of admitting petitions, the basis of reaching a decision, and compelling the Respondent to enforce judgment of the Apex court. These interventions are outside the competence of the Court as making them will amount to sitting on appeal over the decision of the NJC, a fact which the Court has reiterated in numerous decision. Consequently the court dismisses reliefs 2, 3,4,5,6 same being outside its jurisdiction. 98. Compensation for infliction of torture The Applicant claimed that the warning letter issued to him and the publication of same had traumatized and demoralized him, destroyed his integrity, respect, honour and good name built over four decades of very excellent service to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. He therefore sought an order of court to enforce his right against torture. The Court having held earlier that the alleged pain and suffering arising from the publication of the warning letter does not constitute torture, consequently dismisses reliefs 1 & 8 above refereed. 99. Compensation for violation of right to fair hearing The Applicant alleged violation of his right to fair hearing by the Respondent for which he claimed a monetary compensation in the sum of eight hundred and fifty five million, Six hundred and twenty five thousand Naira only (N855,625,000) as general damages. The Court recalls that it had earlier found that the warning letter issued to the Applicant by an incompetent Committee is a violation of his right to fair hearing by the Respondent. While its trite law that any violation of human rights attracts reparation which can inter alia be via restituto integrum, monetary compensation as special or general damages or just satisfaction, nevertheless the harm, loss or prejudice emanating from the said violation must be established to enable the award of the appropriate reparation. In KARIM MEISSA WADE V. REPUBLIC OF SENEGAL ECW/CCJ/JUD/19/13 @ pg.28, The Court held ‘that reparation of harm may only be ordered upon the condition that the harm in question is established to have really occurred, and that there is found to have existed a link of cau/se and effect between the offence committed and the harm caused’. 30