00til3 87.The Applicant claims payment of the sum of one hundred billion (100,000,000,000) CFA Francs as reparation for the damage to his image and his reputation vis-d-vis his economic partners as well as the physical and psychological prejudice that he and members of his family have suffered. 88.The Respondent State refutes the very idea of non-pecuniary prejudice suffered by the Applicant and members of his family. lt argues that if the Applicant had suffered morally from the publications of those he describes as "glorifiers of the powers that be", it would be better for him to go after them, instead of claiming reparations from the State of Benin. 89.The Court recalls its jurisprudence according to which there is a presumption of moral prejudice suffered by an Applicant when the Court finds that his rights have been violated, such that it is no longer necessary to seek to establish the link between the violation and the damage.17 The Court also held that the assessment of the amounts to be awarded as reparation for non-pecuniary damage should be made on equitable basis taking into account the circumstances of each case.18 90.|n the instant case, the Applicant's claim for reparation for non-pecuniary damage resulted from the violation of Articles 5 and 7(1)(a) and (b) of the Charter on respect for dignity and the right to a fair trial established in the Judgment of 29 March 201g. 17 lngabire Victoire v. Rwanda, op cit. S 59 ; Beneficiaries of late Norbeft Zongo, Abdoulaye Nikiema alias Ailasse, Emest Zongo, Blaise llboudo and Mouvement Burtinabd des Droifs de t'Homme et des peuptes v. Burkina Faso (Reparation) (2015) 1 AfCLR 258, op cit. g '10. Lohd /ssa Kona6 c. Burkina Faso (Reparation) (2016) 1 AfCLR 346, op cit. g 6'1. 18 /bld, Judgment Beneficiaies of late Norbert zongo v. Burkina Faso (Reparation) g 6l 24 -7 @-