Communication 341/07 - Equality Now v Ethiopia produced title deeds for the house to the Commission. Moreover, the Commission has on record Ms Negash's own correspondence terminating legal representation by Ethiopian Women Lawyers Association. From the date of such termination, EWLA had no basis for purporting to represent Ms Negash in negotiations with the Respondent State. 157. Notably, Ms Negash, who proceeded on the understanding that the settlement negotiations had been terminated, states that she no longer has interest in the house. In any event, she has since left the country and the house may not be of much immediate benefit to her. It is immaterial if she is away from her country on leave of absence or having sought asylum there. In the circumstances, the Commission considers that the house can be processed to form part of reparations that have practical utility to Ms Negash. 158. Regarding compensation as a form of reparations or remedies, the Commission notes that monetary compensation for non-material damage is at large and is determined as a matter of impression, taking into account all the relevant circumstances of the case as opposed to a mathematical formula. The relevant circumstances include the physical, psychological, and emotional trauma that Ms Negash suffered as a result of the primary violations by the private individuals, as well as the denial of justice by the Respondent State's failures. The Complainant suggests a monetary award in the range of US$250,000.00 to US$500,000.00. Nothing has been offered to justify this range. The Commission does not have any comparable awards in its jurisprudence. This makes the relevant award even the more at large. Having considered the matter, the Commission deems that a lump sum award of US$150,000.00 suffices as equitable and fair compensation to Ms Negash. If indeed the Respondent State built the house as indicated, it is at liberty to sell the same to defray part of this lump sum award. 159. The Complainant also requests that the Respondent State should repeal the Charities and Societies Proclamation which is being used to stifle the work of civil society organisations working on human rights. The Commission notes that the Complainant only included this issue in the reply. It was not part of the case advanced at the admissibility stage. As result, the admissibility of this issue was not considered on admissibility, and the Respondent State has had no chance to present its observations on the same. The Commission declines to consider the attendant praver. Decision of the Commission on the merits 160. In light of the foregoing, the African Commission on Human and Peoples^