60. Given the above, the Court finds that the Respondent State violated the Applicant’s right to dignity and not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and treatment guaranteed under Article 5 of the Charter regarding the imposition of the death sentence by hanging. IX. REPARATIONS 61. The Applicant prays the Court to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal and to order his release; to order the Respondent State to pay him reparations for the time spent in prison and to order any other remedy that the Court deems fit. *** 62. Article 27(1) of the Protocol provides that “If the Court finds that there has been violation of a human or peoples’ rights, it shall make appropriate orders to remedy the violation, including the payment of fair compensation or reparation.” 63. As the Court has consistently held, for reparations to be granted, the Respondent State should first be internationally responsible for the wrongful act. Second, causation should be established between the wrongful act and the alleged prejudice. Third, where it is granted, reparation should cover the prejudice suffered. Lastly, the Applicant bears the onus to justify the claims made.23 64. In the present Application, the Court has found that the Respondent State violated the Applicant’s right to life and to dignity, guaranteed under Articles 4 and 5 of the Charter respectively in relation to the mandatory imposition of the death penalty and execution by hanging. The Court, therefore, finds that the Respondent State’s responsibility has been established. The 23 Armand Guehi v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (7 December 2018) 2 AfCLR 477, § 157. 15