183. In respect of the Applicant’s submission on reparations, the Respondent State avers that there is no violation of the Applicant’s rights warranting reparations. The Respondent State avers that the Applicant is duty bound to prove the alleged reparations before the same is granted by the Court. *** 184. The Court recalls Article 27(1) of the Protocol which provides that: If the Court finds that there has been violation of a human or peoples’ rights, it shall make appropriate orders to remedy the violation including the payment of the fair compensation or reparation. 185. The Court considers that, as it has consistently held, for reparations to be granted, the Respondent State should first be internationally responsible of the wrongful act and causation should be established between the wrongful act and the alleged prejudice.82 Furthermore, and where granted, reparation should cover the full damage suffered. It is also clear that it is always the Applicant that bears the onus of justifying the claims made.83 A. Pecuniary reparations i. Material prejudice 186. The Court recalls that for it to grant reparations for material prejudice, there must be a causal link between the violation established by the Court and the prejudice caused and there should be a specification of the nature of 82 XYZ v. Republic of Benin (judgment) (27 November 2020) 4 AfCLR 49, § 158 and Sébastien Germain Ajavon v. Republic of Benin (reparations) (28 November 2019) 3 AfCLR 196, § 17. 83 Juma v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 141; Norbert Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (reparations) (5 June 2015) 1 AfCLR 258, §§ 20-31; and Reverend Christopher R. Mtikila v. United Republic of Tanzania (reparations) (13 June 2014) 1 AfCLR 72, §§ 27-29. 52