ESSONO MIKA MIHA v. EQUATORIAL GUINEA, Comm. No. 414/1990, para. 6.5; PAUL KELLY v. JAMAICA, Comm. No. 253/1987, para. 5.8). 231. Based on the information presented, the Court finds that the Respondent violated the Applicant’s right to liberty and security guaranteed by Articles 6, in fine, of the African Charter, 9, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR, and 9 of the UDHR. XII – REPARATION 232. The Applicant seeks to be compensated in the symbolic amount of 01 CFA franc for the damage he suffered. 233. The Respondent said nothing in connection with this relief sought. 234. In the instant case, it was established that the Respondent State, through its agents, violated the Applicant's rights to freedom of opinion liberty and security, which grants the Applicant the right to reparation, according to the principle of international law, which establishes that “everyone who is a victim of a violation of his human rights has the right to fair and equitable redress”, whereas in terms of human rights violations, full reparation is, as a rule, impossible. (See Judgment No. ECW/CCJ/JUD/01/06, rendered in the case DJOT BAYI TALBIA & OTHERS v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA & OTHERS in CCJ ELR ( 2004-2009)). 235. Now, considering the seriousness of the violated rights and their consequences for the Applicant, making a global and equitable assessment, the Court attributes to the Applicant, as compensation for immaterial damages that he suffered in the amount of 1 (one) FCFA, as he claims. XIV. COSTS 236. The Applicant sought that the Respondent be ordered to pay the costs. 61