death penalty in its penal law as well as by prescribing hanging as a method for implementing the death penalty. It is in respect of these violations that reparations must be determined since all other allegations by the Applicants have been dismissed. A. Pecuniary reparations i. Material prejudice 128. The Court recalls that for it to grant reparations for material prejudice, there must be a causal link between the violation established by the Court and the prejudice caused and there should be a specification of the nature of the prejudice and proof thereof.47 129. In the instant case, the Court recalls that the Applicants never specifically provided any proof of the material prejudice that they suffered as a result of the violation established by the Court. 130. In the circumstances, the Court, therefore, does not grant reparations for material prejudice. ii. Moral prejudice 131. The Applicants did not make any prayers specifically seeking reparations for the moral prejudice that they may have suffered. The Court recalls, however, that moral prejudice is presumed in cases of human rights violations and can be awarded by the Court acting under its equitable jurisdiction.48 132. In the present application, the Court has established that the Respondent State violated Articles 1, 4 and 5 of the Charter, it is thus to be presumed 47 Isiaga v. Tanzania, supra, § 20. Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (reparations), supra, § 55; Umuhoza v. Rwanda (reparations), supra, § 59; Jonas v. Tanzania (reparations), supra, § 23. 48 34