due to his imprisonment. Citing the Court's jurisprudence in Lohé /ssa Konaté v. Burkina Faso, the Applicant prays the Court to grant him United States Dollars Twenty Thousand (USD $20,000) in moral damages. The Applicant requests the Court to also take into account the thirteen (13) years he spent in prison. 149. In its Response, the Respondent State contends that for moral damages to be claimed, the alleged moral prejudice should be directly caused by the facts of the case. It asserts that it is not the duty of the Court to speculate on the existence, seriousness and magnitude of the moral damages claimed. In this regard, the Respondent State argues that the Applicant has not adduced any proof of emotional anguish or chronic diseases suffered due to imprisonment or in relation to his rights. To substantiate its contention, the Respondent State claims that there is no medical certificate showing the existence of a chronic disease suffered or emotional anguish the Applicant encountered while in prison or following the violation of his rights. ee 150. The Court notes that, moral prejudice involves the suffering, anguish and changes in the living conditions of an Applicant and his family.“ As such, the causal link between the wrongful act and moral prejudice “can result from the human rights violation, as a consequence thereof, without a need to establish causality as such”.“” The Court has held previously that the evaluation of quantum in cases of moral prejudice must be done in fairness and taking into account the circumstances of the case.** In such instances, awarding lump sums would generally apply as the standard.*° “Reverend Christopher R. Mtikila v. United Republic of Tanzania (reparations) (2014) 1 AfCLR 72 § 34. ‘7Beneficiaries of late Norbert Zongo (reparations) § 55; and Lohé Issa Konaté v. Burkina Faso (reparations), § 58. 48Armand Guehi v. United Republic of Tanzania, § 157; Beneficiaries of late Norbert Zongo v. Burkina Faso (reparations) (2015) 1 AfCLR 258, § 61. 48Lucien Ikili Rashidi v.United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations), § 116-117; Beneficiaries of late Norbert Zongo v. Burkina Faso (reparations) (2015) 1 AfCLR 258, § 62. 41