ii. A declaration that the Applicant’s Application for reparations is unfounded and devoid of merit for failure to meet the test enshrined in the principles and prerequisites of reparations. iii. An order for dismissal of the Application for reparations with costs. iv. Any other order/relief this Honourable court deems fit and just to grant under the prevailing circumstances. 108. The Respondent State, in respect of the Second Applicant’s submissions on reparations, prays for the following declarations and orders: i. A Declaration that the Applicant has not violated the African Charter or the Protocol. ii. A Declaration that the Applicant is not entitled to compensation of TSH 151 200 000. iii. An Order to dismiss the Application and the Applicant’s submission on reparations. iv. Any other Order this Court might deem right and just to grant under the prevailing circumstances. *** 109. The Court recalls Article 27(1) of the Protocol which provides that: If the Court finds that there has been violation of a human or peoples’ rights, it shall make appropriate orders to remedy the violation including the payment of the fair compensation or reparation. 110. The Court considers that for reparations to be granted, the Respondent State should, first, be internationally responsible for the wrongful act. Second, causation should be established between the wrongful act and the alleged prejudice. Furthermore, and where granted, reparation should cover the full damage suffered. It is also clear that it is always the Applicant that bears the onus of justifying the claims made.27 As the Court has stated 27 See, Guehi v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 157. See also, Norbert Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (reparations) (5 June 2015) 1 AfCLR 258, §§ 20-31; Lohé Issa Konaté v. Burkina Faso 29