held that the purpose of reparations is to, as much as possible, place the victim in the situation prior to the violation.34 The Court has further held, with respect to moral prejudice, that it exercises judicial discretion in equity in determining the award.35 In such instances, the Court has adopted the practice of awarding lump sums.36 A. Pecuniary reparations 123. The Court notes that the Applicant prays the Court to grant him moral damages for the prejudice that ensued from the violation of his rights. As established in this judgment, the Applicant suffered several violations which inherently involve moral prejudice. These include imposition of the mandatory death penalty, a lengthy pre-trial detention, the death row, all of them compounded by overall inhuman and degrading circumstances. 124. In similar instances, this Court has found that such circumstances unequivocally warrant moral damages which it has, in equity, assessed to the tune of Tanzanian Shillings Four Million (TZS 4,000,000) to Tanzanian Shillings Five Million (TZS 5,000,000).37 The Court finds that there is no peculiar reason to depart from this range of awards in the present Application. However, in respect of circumstances and substantive findings of this Court, the present Application shares greater similarities with that of Gozbert Henerico v. Tanzania. Against these considerations, the Court awards the Applicant moral damages and therefore grant the Applicant moral damages to the tune of Tanzanian Shillings Seven Million (TZS 7,000,000). 34 Amini Juma v. Tanzania, ibid, § 143. Amini Juma v. Tanzania, ibid, § 144; Armand Guehi v. Tanzania, ibid, § 181; Lucien Ikili Rashidi v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (28 March 2019) 3 AfCLR 13, § 119. 36 Amini Juma v. Tanzania, idem; Armand Guehi v. Tanzania, ibid, § 177. 37 Amini Juma v. Tanzania, ibid, §§ 152-158; Gozbert Henerico v. Tanzania, ibid, §§ 185-189. 35 33