* 120. The Respondent State submits that the Applicant’s prayers be dismissed. *** 121. In line with its established case law, moral prejudice is presumed in cases of human rights violation. The quantum of damages, in this connection, is assessed based on equity, taking into account the circumstances of the case.31 122. In the instance Application, the Court finds that the violations suffered by the Applicant involve moral prejudice. These include imposition of the mandatory death penalty and the time he continues to spend on death row both of which are compounded by overall inhuman and degrading circumstances on death row. While the death sentence is yet to be carried out, the Applicant has inevitably suffered prejudice from the established violations caused by the very imposition of the mandatory death sentence.32 123. Given the circumstances of the case, and in light of the Court’s jurisprudence that a judgment in favour of a victim is in itself a form of satisfaction and a reparation for moral damages,33 the Court, in its discretion, awards the Applicant Tanzanian Shillings Three Hundred Thousand (TZS 300,000) for moral damages suffered. B. Non-pecuniary reparations i. Quashing of conviction 124. The Applicant prays the Court to “quash the whole proceedings of the high court and the court of appeal …”. 31 Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (reparations), supra, § 55; Umuhoza v. Rwanda (reparations), supra, § 59; Jonas v. Tanzania (reparations), supra, § 23. 32 Damian v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 149. 33 Christopher Mtikila v. United Republic of Tanzania (reparations) (13 June 2014) 1 AfCLR 72, § 45. 28