The Commission considers that range and type of ultimate remedies depends on the nature of the violations established and the prejudice suffered by the Complainant. The Commission is not bound by the strict rules of pleadings that may be applicable at domestic level, such as that specific remedies must be pleaded. The Commission mandate to protect rights entils that the Commission can adopt any remedy it considers effective in the sense that it adequately redresses the prejudice suffered by the victim. 183. In the present case, where as the amendment to the law redressed the difficulties of obtaining official identification documents, it only did so as from the date of the amendment. The prejudice suffered by the victims as a result of difficulties prior to the amendment are not addressed by this subsequent change in law. In absence of any other remedy that can redress this prior prejudice, the Commission considers that monetary compensation is due. Such compensation is at large: it cannot be ascertained by a mathematical calculation. It is a matter of impression on the part of the Commission. In the circumstances of the present case, the Commission considers that a lump sum award of US$15,000.00 (United States Dollars Ten Thousand) for all the victims cited in the present case to be adequate compensation. 184. Regarding the refusal to document Bahá’í marriages which also constitute violation of Articles 2 and 3 of the Charter, the appropriate remedy should yield the official recognition and documentation of Bahá’í marriages using a legal regime that is neutral of religion since the Respondent State does not recognise Bahá’í as a religion and source of personal law. In this regard, the Respondent State should take necessary measures that yield this state of affairs. In particular, the Respondent State has to adopt a law which is neutral of religion for purposes of recognising and documenting marriages of persons under its jurisdiction such as the Baha’i in particular) who do not identify with the personal laws that are based on the three recognised religions. Decision of the Commission’s on the merits 185. In light of the foregoing, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights: (a) Finds that the Respondent State is in violation of Article 2 as read together with Article 3 both of the Charter; (b) Finds that the Respondent State is in violation of Artile 8 of the Charter in respect of the freedom of religion reserved to the forum internum. 39