domestic courts. The Court, therefore, finds that the Respondent State’s responsibility has been established. The Applicant is consequently entitled to reparations commensurate with the extent of the established violations. 77. The Court notes that the Applicants’ prayers relate to both pecuniary and non-pecuniary reparations. A. Pecuniary reparations i. Material prejudice 78. In the instant case, the Applicant prays the Court to grant him United States Dollars Eleven Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty (USD 11,520) for the prejudice suffered since he was arrested. * 79. 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 the prejudice and proof thereof.32 Further, this Court has held that an Applicant bears the burden of providing evidence to support his/her claims for material prejudice.33 The Court thus dismisses the prayer of the Applicant and does not grant reparation for material prejudice to the Applicant. ii. Moral prejudice 80. The Applicant prays that the Court orders the Respondent State to pay him a total amount of United States Dollars Seventy-Two Thousand (USD 72,000) for moral prejudice. The Applicant alleges that the amount is 32 Nguza Viking (Babu Seya) and Another v. United Republic of Tanzania (reparations) (8 May 2020) 4 AfCLR 3, § 15 and Kijiji Isiaga v. Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 011/2015, Judgment of 25 June 2021 (reparations), § 20. 33 Msuguri v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 122; Elisamehe v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 97 and Guehi v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 15. 22