that the judgement itself is a form of reparation” See Mtikila v Tanzania & Cantoral-Benavides v Peru. See also the case of Commission natuionale des droits de l’Homme et des liberte vs Chad No 74/92, where the African Commission provided no reparation beyond the judgement. The Court therefore declares that this judgement which finds the Respondent in violation of the Applicant’s right to fair hearing is in itself a just satisfaction. 114. Order for a formal apology by the Respondent. One of the reliefs sought by the Applicant is an order directing the Respondent to issue an apology to him and same to be published in three newspapers and three television stations. The Court finds no essence in this relief and is dismissed. 115, Award of Cost With Regards to cost, the Applicants claimed the sum of twelve million, two hundred and thirty thousand seven hundred and fifty naira (N12, 230,750) only being the cost of this suit. However, no particulars was submitted to support same. The Chief Registrar is directed to assess any cost payable, DECISION 116. The Court after examining the written submissions, and having heard parties in open Court and for the reasons canvassed above, decides as follows: 1. Declares that the respondent did not violate the Applicant’s freedom from torture consequently reliefs I and 8 are hereby dismissed. 2. Declares that reliefs 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are outside the competence of the Court as making the orders will amount to sitting on appeal over the decision of the NJC. Consequently same are hereby dismissed. 3. Declares the letter of warning issued to the Applicant emanating from an incompetent Committee violates his right to fair hearing. 4. Declares that this judgement in itself is a just satisfaction. 4. Orders the Respondent to pay the sum of 50 Naira (fifty Naira only) as nominal damages for the violation of the Applicant’s right to fair hearing. 32