115. The Court also confirms that the measures that a State must take to remedy a violation of human rights include restitution, compensation, and rehabilitation of the victim, as well as measures to ensure non-repetition of the violations, taking into account the circumstances of each case.30 116. In the instant Application, the Court has established that the Respondent State’s conduct has violated the Applicant’s right to life and right to dignity only. It is in respect of these violations, therefore, that the Court must assess the reparations due. A. Pecuniary reparations i. Material prejudice 117. The Court observes that the Applicant simply prayed the Court to order the Government of Tanzania to compensate him for the injury which was occasioned to him. The Applicant, however, did not specify quantum of compensation that he was claiming. He also did not provide any information explaining material prejudice he suffered, how this is linked with the violation of his rights under the Charter and how the Respondent State’s liability is engaged. 118. Given the Applicant’s failure to first, specify his material prejudice, and second, to prove the same, the Court dismisses the prayer for reparations for material prejudice. ii. Moral prejudice 119. The Applicant does not expressly request the Court to grant him reparations for moral prejudice. He simply prays for the Court to compensate him for the injury suffered. 30 Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v. Republic of Rwanda (reparations) (7 December 2018) 2 AfCLR 202, § 20. 27