into account the circumstances of the case.41 The Court has, thus, adopted the practice of granting a lump sum in such instances.42 142. The Court has also established that the Applicants’ right to legal assistance under Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter as read together with Article 14(3)(d) of the ICCPR was violated. The Applicants are, therefore, entitled to moral damages as there is a presumption that they have suffered some form of moral prejudice as a result of the said violation.43 143. The Court’s practice has been that it grants applicants an average amount of Three Hundred Thousand Tanzanian Shillings (TZS 300,000) in instances where free legal assistance is not availed by the Respondent State, where an applicant is charged with a serious offence, and where there are no extenuating circumstances.44 Consequently, exercising its discretion in equity, the Court awards the instant Applicants the amount of Three Hundred Thousand Tanzanian Shillings (TZS 300,000) for moral prejudice they suffered in relation to this violation. B. Non-Pecuniary Reparations 144. The Applicants pray the Court to quash their conviction and sentence and restore their liberty. 145. The Respondent State reiterates that the jurisdiction of the Court does not extend to the reversal or overturning of decisions made by its national courts. It stresses that this Court is not empowered to function as “a fourth instance” or an appellate court. Accordingly, the Respondent State submits 41 Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (reparations), supra, § 55; Umuhoza v. Rwanda (reparations), supra, § 59; Christopher Jonas v. Republic of Tanzania (reparations) (25 September 2020), 4 AfCLR 545, § 23. 42 Rashidi v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 119; Minani Evarist v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (21 September 2018) 2 AfCLR 402, §§ 84-85; Guehi v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 177; Jonas v. Tanzania, ibid,, § 24. 43 Cheusi v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra § 151. 44 Evarist v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 90; Anaclet Paulo v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (21 September 2018) 2 AfCLR 446, § 111; Jonas v. Tanzania (reparations), supra, § 25. 36