229. At the Public Hearing, Counsel for the Applicant prayed the Court to order the Respondent State to have the case retried by the national courts taking into account the defects found, and this, within a reasonable time to be determined by the Court; order the Respondent State to provide legal aid and free representation to the Applicant for the retrial; and order that reparation be awarded in respect of all the human rights violations established. 230. In its submissions at the same Public Hearing, the Respondent State’s representative for his part asked that "...no reparation should be granted to the Applicant with regard to this Application..." 231. Article 27(1) of the Protocol establishing the Court 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 fair compensation or reparation." 232. In this regard, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court provides that "the Court shall rule on the request for reparation... by the same decision establishing the violation of a human and peoples’ right or, if the circumstances so require, by a separate decision.” 233. In the instant case, the Court will decide on certain forms of reparation in this judgment, and rule on other forms of reparation at a later stage of the proceedings. 234. Regarding the Applicant’s prayer to be set free, as the Court stated in the matter of Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania, such a measure could be ordered by the Court itself only in special and compelling?? circumstances. In the instant case, the Applicant has not indicated such special and compelling circumstances. 28 Judgment of 20 November 2015, para 157. - ee ©