001067 137. The Applicant alleges that his arbitrary detention led to a loss of his socio- economic activities by which he provided the needs of his family. To that end, he seeks reparation for the reason that his life plans have been shattered and that his sources of income have not only been interrupted but also definitively lost. i. Material prejudice 138. The Applicant is claiming the sum of two hundred and eighty-three thousand three hundred and thirty-three (US$ 283,333) dollars as compensation for the prejudice suffered. 139. The Respondent State for its part submitted its. response to the Applicant's request for reparation on 17 January 2019; and relying on this Court’s jurisprudence particularly in Mtikila v. Tanzania, argues that the Applicant must provide evidence of his entitlement to compensation as well as of the form and estimated amount of the remedy. It also argued that the Applicant has adduced no evidence to justify such compensation. 140. The Respondent State also invokes the "burden of proof" principle according to which the Applicant must show "that it is more probable than not" that he is entitled to the remedies sought, which in its view is not the case in this matter. 141. The Respondent State also emphasizes the established principle in international law whereby there must be a link between an alleged violation and the prejudice suffered. It must be shown that the damage would never have occurred without the alleged violation. For the Respondent State, the Applicant did not provide the needed proof of a causal link in as much as the Respondent State did not commit any act, omission or negligence that would have resulted in a violation of the Applicant's rights, adding that the Applicant was instead a victim of his own attitude.