Respondent State had simultaneously violated its obligation under Article 1 of the Charter. V!II. REMEDIES SOUGHT 79. As indicated in paragraph 16 of this Judgment, the Applicant prays, inter alia, that the Court set aside his conviction, release him from prison and order that reparation measures be taken. 80. As indicated in paragraph 19 above the Respondent State requests that the Application be dismissed in its entirety for lack of merit and that accordingly, the Applicant should not be granted reparation. *** 81. Article 27 (1) of the Protocol provides that "if the Court finds that there has been a violation of a human or peoples' rights, it shall make appropriate orders to remedy the violation, including the payment of fair compensation or reparation." 82. ln this respect, Rule 63 of the Rules stipulates that "the Court shall rule on the request for the reparation ... by the same decision establishing the violation of a human and peoples' right or, if the circumstances so require, by a separate decision.,, 83. The Court recalls its position on State responsibility in Reverend Christopher R. Mtikila v. United Republic of Tanzanra, that "any violation of an international obligation that has caused harm entails the obligation to provide adequate reparation."l2 84. As regards the prayer to quash the Applicant's conviction and sentencing, the Court reiterates its decision that it is not an appellate Courts with powers to overturn the decisions of national courts, therefore it declines to grant this prayer.13 plication No. 01112011Ruling of 1 310612014, Reverend Christopher R. Mtikita v. lJnited Republic of para.27 13 Application No.032/2015 J 95. w 5>s of 2310312018, KUij| lsiaga v United Republic of Tanzania para. 4le