million per father or mother. In the same vein, the Court dismisses the claims for reparation for moral prejudice submitted for the other persons listed by the Applicants, namely: step-mothers, uterine sisters and brothers, and step sisters and step brothers. 2) The Burkinabé Movement on Human and Peoples’ Rights (MBDHP) 63. In their Brief on Reparations, the Applicants stated that the MBDHP “...claims from Burkina Faso a token amount for the damage caused to it for its involvement in the search for the truth...” 64. In its Brief in Response, the Respondent State indicated that it “finds no inconvenience with paying” the token 1 CFA F “for the moral damage” [the MBDHP] “had suffered”. 65, The Court accepts, firstly, that a legal entity can suffer a moral prejudice*®. In the instant case, this prejudice may have resulted from the frustrations experienced for years by the MBDHP on account of the inconclusiveness of the action of apprehending, prosecuting and bringing to trial the assassins of Norbert Zongo and his companions. 66 In this regard, the Court is further of the opinion that in line with international practice’®, the findings in its aforementioned Judgment of 28 March 2014 regarding the violation of the Charter by the Respondent State, already constitutes in itself a form of reparation for the moral prejudice suffered by the MBDHP. *® See on this score: ECHR: Comingersoll S.A v. Portugal, Judgment of6 April 2000 para 35: “In light of its own case-law and that practice, the Court cannot (therefore) exclude the possibility that a commercial company may be awarded pecuniary compensation for non-pecuniary damage"; /dem: Parti de la liberté et de la démocratie (Ozdep) v. Turkey, Judgment of 8 December 1999, paras 55 to 57. 26 ACHR: El Amparo v. Venezuela (Reparations and Costs), Judgement of 14 September 1996, para. 35; IACHR, Neira Alegria and Others v. Peru (Reparations and Costs) Judgment of 19 September 1996, para. 56; IACHR: Montero-Artanguren and Others (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela, Judgment of 5 July 2006, para. 131: “Judgments, pursuant to repeated international precedents, constitute in and of themselves a form of reparation’; ECHR: Varnava and Others v. Turkey, Judgment of 18 September 2009, GC, para. 224; ICJ: United Compendium 1949, p. 36. Kingdom v. Albania (Strait of Corfu), 22 Merits, Judgment Cr of 9 April of 1949,