145. The Applicant avers that he has suffered a lot of mental anguish as a result of being first arrested, the charges being dropped and another case being opened against him. 146. In its oral submissions, the Respondent State avers that, given that the Applicant's conviction and sentencing are lawful, the emotional anguish is the result of his guilt and there should be no finding of violation in this regard. *** 147. The Court notes that this claim arises as a consequence of the delayed proceedings before domestic courts as established earlier. Having found that the consequential delay led to the violation of the Applicant's right to have his cause heard within a reasonable time, the Court is of the view that the present claim is a request for reparation, which will be dealt with later on. E. Alleged violation of Article 1 of the Charter 148. The Applicant does not substantiate his claim that the Respondent State violated Article 1 of the Charter. The Respondent State challenges the claim without substantiating its contention. *** 149. As this Court has consistently held, a determination on whether Article 1 of the Charter was violated involves an examination not only of whether the domestic legislative measures taken by the Respondent State are available but also whether the said measures were implemented, which is that the relevant object and purpose of the Charter was attained 42 In the same case, the Court held that if it finds that any of the rights in the Charter is curtailed, violated or not achieved, then Article 1 is violated." 42 See Alex Thomas v. Tanzania, op. cit., §. 135; Kennedy Owino Onyachi and Charles John Mwanini Njoka v. Tanzania, op. cit., §§. 158 and 159. 43 Ibid. 36