0qol0r 73. The Respondent State merely refutes this claim and calls on the Applicant to provide proof thereof. 74.The Court notes that the situation described by the Applicant as a violation of his right to equal protection of the law relates to Article 3(2) of the Charter, which stipulates that: "Every individual shall be entitled to equal protection of the law." 75. However, the Court notes that the Applicant has made general allegations without sutficient evidence to substantiate them. Relying on its jurisprudence cited in paragraph 57 of this Judgment, the Court therefore holds that the alleged violation has not been proven, and accordingly dismisses the same. VIII. REMEDIES SOUGHT to restore justice by setting aside his conviction and sentence; ordering his release from prison; awarding him compensation for the violation of his fundamental rights and, making such other orders as it may 76. The Applicant prays the Court deem fit. Response, the Respondent State prays the Court to dismiss the Application and the Applicant's prayers in their entirety on the grounds that they 77.1n its are baseless. *** 78. The Court notes that Article 27(1) of the Protocol stipulates that "lf the Court finds that there has been violation of a human or peoples' right, it shall make appropriate orders to remedy the violation, including the payment of fair compensation or reparation." 79.ln this respect, Rule 63 of the Rules provides that "The Court shall rule on the request for the reparation ... by the same decision establishing the violation of a human and peoples' right or, if the circumstances so require, by a separate decision". t7 @