not to enrich the party whose right was violated. This Court has clearly put this straight when it held that, “...its principal object of an award in human rights violation is to vindicate the injured feelings of the victim and to restore his rights See EBERE ANTHONIA AMADI & 3 ORS v. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF NIGERIA ECW/CCJ/JUD/22/19 @ Pg. 14. 108. Before an award for reparation is made, it is important that the harm, loss or prejudice emanating from the said violation must be established to enable the award of the appropriate reparation. Furthermore even where there is an established violation as in the instant case, it is still paramount to link the violation to the harm or alleged prejudice/harm, in other words there must be a proof of a causative link. Causation encompasses the immediate impact of the injury e.g. death leads to funeral expenses, dismissal results in loss of income etc. In expatiating this, The Court held ‘that reparation of harm may only be ordered upon the condition that the harm in question is established to have really occurred, and that there is found to have existed a link of cause and effect between the offence committed and the harm caused’. In KARIM MEISSA WADE V. REPUBLIC OF SENEGAL ECW/CCJ/JUD/19/13 @ pg.28. 109. The African Court has further expatiated on this when it held that “The Court considers that for reparation to be granted, the Respondent should first be internationally responsible for the wrongful act. Secondly, causation should be established between the wrongful act and the alleged prejudice. Furthermore, and where granted, reparation should cover the full damaged suffered. See JAMES WANJARA & 4 ORS V UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA APPLICATION No 033-2015 #85 41