ii. Moral prejudice a. Moral prejudice suffered by the Applicant 106. The Applicant affirms that he experienced mental suffering and that his trial was stressful. * 107. The Respondent State submits that the Applicant’s request for reparations be dismissed. *** 108. The Court reiterates its jurisprudence that moral prejudice is presumed in the event of a violation of human rights. The assessment of the amount of reparation relating thereto should be made on the basis of equity, taking into account the particular circumstances of each case23 In this regard, the Court has consistently awarded a lump sum.24 109. The Court emphasises that it has found that the Respondent State violated the Applicant’s right to life and the right to dignity. It considers that the Applicant has suffered non-pecuniary harm and is therefore entitled to reparation for that harm. 110. The Court also notes that the Applicant’s imprisonment disrupted his life plan. However, as it has not established that his conviction was unlawful, the Court cannot award him reparations for the harm suffered as a result of the imprisonment itself. 23 Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (reparations), supra, § 55; Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v. Republic of Rwanda (reparations) (7 December 2018) 2 AfCLR 202, § 59 and Jonas v. Tanzania, ibid., § 23. 24 Lucien Ikili Rashidi v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (28 March 2019) 3 AfCLR 13, § 119; Minani Evarist v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (21 September 2018) 2 AfCLR 402, §§ 84-85 and Guehi v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 177. 25