172. The Court reiterates that the general rule with regard to material prejudice is that there must be a causal link between the established violation and the prejudice suffered by the Applicant and the onus is on the Applicant to provide evidence to justify his prayers.37 With regard to moral prejudice, the Court exercises judicial discretion in equity. 173. In the instant case, the Court has established that the Respondent State violated the rights under Article 1, 2, 7(1) and 7(1)(b) of the Charter through the application of Sections 148(5) of the CPA. 174. It is against these findings that the Court will consider the Applicant’s prayers for reparation. A. Constitutional and legislative measures 175. The Applicants pray the Court to order the Respondent State to put in place constitutional and legislative measures so as to guarantee the rights provided for in the Charter and other international human rights instruments. 176. Furthermore, the Applicants seek an order that all suspects and accused persons charged with unbailable offences, as per the law of the Respondent State, be released on bail within one (1) month from the date of the decision, under bail conditions to be set by the Respondent State’s courts, based on the circumstance of each case. 177. The Respondent State prays for the dismissal of the prayers for reparations. *** 178. The Court having found that Section 148(5) of the CPA violates Articles 1, 2, 7(1) and 7(1)(b) of the Charter, orders the Respondent State to take all necessary constitutional and legislative measures, within a reasonable time 37 Christopher Mtikila v. Republic of Tanzania (reparations) (13 June 2014) 1 AfCLR 72, § 40; Lohé Issa Konaté v. Burkina Faso (reparations) (3 June 2016) 1 AfCLR 346, § 15. 38