114. However, the Court having found that the Respondent State violated the Applicants’ right to free legal assistance, contrary to Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter, there is a presumption that both Applicants suffered moral prejudice. 115. In assessing the quantum of damages for the violation of the Applicants’ right to free legal assistance, the Court bears in mind that it has adopted the practice of granting applicants an average amount of Three Hundred Thousand Tanzanian Shillings (TZS 300,000) in instances where legal aid was not availed by the Respondent State especially where the facts reveal no special or exceptional circumstances.33 In the circumstances, and in the exercise of its discretion, the Court awards each of the Applicants the amount of Three Hundred Thousand Tanzanian Shillings (TZS 300,000) as fair compensation. IX. COSTS 116. The Court observes that the Respondent State prays that the costs should be borne by both Applicants. The Court further observes that the Second Applicant prayed that the Court order costs against the Respondent State. *** 117. The Court notes that Rule 32(2) of the Rules provides that “Unless otherwise decided by the Court, each party shall bear its own costs, if any”.34 118. In the circumstances, the Court does not find any reason for departing from the stipulation in Rule 32(2) and, therefore, orders that each Party shall bear its own costs. 33 34 Evarist v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 90; and Paulo v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 111. Formerly Rule 30(2) of the Rules of 2 June 2010. 31