were violated by the Respondent State resulting in psychological and emotional distress, entitling them to reparation for moral prejudice. 385. The Court has held that the assessment of quantum in cases of moral prejudice must be done in fairness and taking into account the circumstances of the case.111 The practice of the Court, in such instances, is to award a lump sum for moral prejudice.112 386. In the present case, the Court agrees with the Applicants, that PWA have definitely suffered moral prejudice including anguish, grief, sadness, distress, fear, frustration, anxiety, inconvenience, humiliation. The Court observes however, that, the Applicants’ request for reparations for moral prejudice is in abstracto, as they did not enumerate or attach the list of PWA who would be the recipient of the reparations. 387. While it is not possible to allocate a precise monetary value equivalent to the moral prejudice suffered by the PWA, nevertheless, the Court can award compensation that provides adequate reparation to them. In determining reparations for moral prejudice, as earlier pointed out, the Court takes into consideration the reasonable exercise of judicial discretion and bases its decision on the principles of equity taking into account the specific circumstances of each case. 388. The Court is mindful that the violations established in the present Application relate to rights that remain central to the very existence of the PWA. The Respondent State, therefore, is under a duty to compensate the PWA for the moral prejudice suffered as a result of the violation of their rights. Taking into account the exercise of its discretion in equity, the Court orders the Respondent State to pay into the compensation fund the sum of Ten Million Tanzanian Shillings (TZS 10, 000, 000) to remedy the moral 111 Juma v. Tanzania (judgment), supra, § 144; Viking and Another v. Tanzania (reparations), supra, § 41 and Umuhoza v. Rwanda (reparations), supra, § 59. 112 Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (reparations), supra, §§ 61-62 and Guehi v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 177. 87