ii. Measures of restitution 133. In light of its findings above, corporal punishment as a remedial measure should no longer apply to the Second Applicant. 134. The Court however notes that, as earlier stated the Second Applicant has been imprisoned for over two-decades at the time of the present judgment, and restitution can therefore not be contemplated as a measure of reparation. In the present case, this Court considers that the prejudice suffered, compounded by the time already unduly spent in custody, constitutes a compelling circumstance that makes it most appropriate to order the Second Applicant’s release as a reparation. 135. Accordingly, the Court orders the Respondent State to release the Second Applicant without any delay. IX. COSTS 136. In the present Application, the Applicant did not make any submissions as regards costs. 137. The Respondent State prays that the Applicant should bear the costs of the Application. *** 138. The Court notes that Rule 32(2) of its Rules provides that “unless otherwise decided by the Court, each party shall bear its own costs, if any.” 139. Noting that there is nothing in the present Application that warrants departing from the above provision, the Court decides that each Party shall bear its own costs. 34