30. In this case, the Court notes that, though the Applicant submitted his Income same, and there Expenditure were no Statement, sufficient establish that these damages and the violations and raised evidentiary arguments elements on the presented to directly arose from the facts of this case declared in the Judgment of 14 June 2013. Furthermore, the Applicant insisted that he would present his evidence at a yet to be determined hearing and therefore did not adduce cogent evidence in the course of the procedural opportunities the Court granted for this purpose. The Applicant did not produce any receipts to support the expenses he claims to have incurred so there is no evidence of any pecuniary Rules, loss as alleged. the Court’s In addition, procedure consists by virtue of Rule primarily of written 27(1) of the proceedings with public hearings being the exception rather than the rule. Therefore, the Applicant, being aware of the Court's procedure failed to provide the evidence of the expenses he claims in his submissions. 31. It is not enough to show that the Respondent State has violated a provision of the Charter; it is also necessary to prove the damages that the State is being required by the Applicant to indemnify. In principle, the existence of a violation of the Charter is not sufficient, per se, to establish a material damage. 32. In view elements to of the foregoing, prove a causal the Court does nexus of the not have the evidentiary facts of this case to the damages claimed by the Applicant in relation to the violations declared in its Judgment of 14 June 2013. As such, it considers that it cannot grant any compensation for pecuniary damages. ae oe Www 24 Me ) t vam o ee IAN CA