* 127. The Respondent State prays the Court to dismiss all of the Applicant’s prayers. *** 128. The Court recalls its well-established jurisprudence that moral prejudice is presumed when a violation is established. When granted, the quantum of reparations is determined in all fairness, taking into account the circumstances of each case.24 129. The Court notes that in the instant case, the Respondent State violated the Applicant’s right to a fair trial insofar as its courts failed to deliver their decision in open court in respect namely of Judgment No. 31528 of the Tunis Court of Appeal of 12 March 2013 and Judgment No. 45501/46360 of the Supreme Court of 4 December 2017. 130. The Court considers that this violation caused the Applicant moral prejudice. In the circumstances, and in the exercise of its discretion, the Court awards him the sum of Six Hundred Tunisian Dinars (TDS 600) for prejudice he suffered. B. Non-pecuniary reparations i. Publication of the judgment 131. The Parties do not make specific prayers in respect of publication of the judgment. *** 24 Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (reparations), supra, § 55; Umuhoza v. Rwanda (reparations), supra, § 59; Christopher Jonas v. United Republic of Tanzania (reparations) (25 September 2020) 4 AfCLR 545, § 23. 29