crt?l to internotionol low"7, a position reiterated by the European Court of Human Rights which hetd that "a iudgment in which the Court finds a t,iolation entails for the Respcndent State the legal obligation to put an end to the violation and fo erase the consequences so as to restore as much as possib/e the situation that existed before the violation 8". Further, the august Court adds that: "Ihe essenfra/ principle, which sfems from the very notion of an unlawful act and which seerns to emerge from international practice, in pafticular from the iurisprudence of arbitral tribunals, is that reparation musf as far as possrb/e erase alt the consequences of the unlavvful act and restore the state that would presumably have existed if the act had not been committed. Restitution in kind, or, if it is nof possrble, payment of an amount corresponding to the value of restitution in kind; allowance, if any, for damages for /osses suffered which are not covered by the refund in kind or the payment which takes the o place of iP ". B. For its part, the African Commission recognized the importance of restitution, and has held that a State in violation of the rights set forth in the African Charter must "take measures to ensure that victims of human rights abuses are given effective remedies, including restitution and compensationlo". A restitution order should specify precisely which rights of the victim should be restored so as to indicate to the State the best way to correct the violation and put the victim in the situation prior to the commission of the violation, as far as possible 9. ln its basic principles and guidelines, the United Nations refers to a variety of o violations that require specific forms of restitution, including restoration of the right to a fair trial, restoration of freedom, restoration of citizenship and return to one's place of residence, etc. 10. ln the event that the violations found by the Court do not require a full restitution measure, such as release or re-opening of proceedings, it goes without saying that 7 CPJI, 13 September 1928, Matter of the Factory 8 CEDH, Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece,Application No. 14556/89, Judgment at Charzdw (Ctaimfor Indemnity), S6rie A - No. 77. of 3l October 1995, para34. e Page 47 10 African Commission; Sudan Human Rights Organisation & Centre on Housing Righx and Evictions (COHRE), Sudan, Operative Part (para. 229(4-) 4[Page d-