137. The Court notes that the Applicant does not make specific submissions nor provide evidence that he was not treated equally before the law or did not enjoy equal protection of the law (Article 3(1) and (2) of the Charter), that he was not tried within a reasonable time by an impartial court or tribunal (Article 7(1)(d) of the Charter) or that he was condemned for an act or omission which did not constitute a legally punishable offence at the time it was committed (Article 7(2) of the Charter).32 138. In these circumstances, the Court finds that there is no basis to find a violation and therefore holds that the Respondent State did not violate Articles 3(1) and (2), 7(1)(d) and 7(2) of the Charter. VIII. REPARATIONS 139. The Court notes that Article 27(1) of the Protocol stipulates that “[i]f the Court finds that there has been violation of a human or peoples’ right, it shall make appropriate orders to remedy the violation, including the payment of fair compensation or reparation.” 140. As per the Court’s jurisprudence, for reparations to be granted, the Respondent State should first be responsible for the wrongful act. Second, causation should be established between the wrongful act and the alleged prejudice. Furthermore, where granted, reparations should cover the full damage suffered. 141. The Court reiterates that the onus is on the Applicant to provide evidence in support of his/her allegation.33 With regard to moral damages, the Court has 32 Sijaona Chacha Machera v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 035/2017 Judgment of 22 September 2022 (merits), § 82. 33 Kennedy Gihana and Others v. Rwanda (merits and reparations) (28 November 2019) 3 AfCLR 655, § 139; See also Reverend Christopher R. Mtikila v. Tanzania (reparations) (13 June 2014) 1 AfCLR 72, § 40; Lohé Issa Konaté v. Burkina Faso (reparations) (3 June 2016) 1 AfCLR 346, § 15(d); and Elisamehe v. Tanzania (judgment), supra, § 97. 33