is not as rigid” since it is assumed that there was prejudice caused when violations are established.”? 98. The Court will consider the Applicant's claims for compensation on the basis of the above-mentioned principles. A. Pecuniary reparations 99. The Court has already found that the Respondent State has violated the Applicant's right to free legal assistance contrary to Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter. i. Material prejudice 100. The Applicant claims that his parents who are, originally from Kilimanjaro, settled in Mto wa Mbu, Monduli District since 1951. In 1974, on the Government's directive, they moved to Majengo, where they lived until 1990, when they returned to their home village in Kilimanjaro, where his father gave him “the family plot measuring 58m by 39m” which had a rustic building. The Applicant claims that he also received from his brother, Mr. Samwel Elisamehe, “a farm with permanent crops as banana plants and mango trees measuring 94m 101. [by] 56m’. The Applicant claims that, following his conviction, his wife had to return to her village, which led to the loss of the aforementioned rustic building which he had started rehabilitating. According to the Applicant, under Tanzanian law, leaving a rustic building unoccupied for ten (10) years shall result in its loss and all inherent rights. 102. The Applicant claims to have lost both the rustic building and the farm; two (2) houses with their respective furnishings; furniture; the foundation of 28 Norbert Zongo v Burkina Faso (reparations), § 55. 29 See Ally Rajabu and Others v United Republic of Tanzania, AfCHPR, Application No. 007/2015, Judgment of 28 November 2019, § 136; Armand Guehi v Tanzania (merits and reparations), § 55; Lucien tkili Rashidi v United Republic of Tanzania, AfCHPR, Application No. 009/2015, Judgment of 28 March 2019 (merits and reparations), § 58; Norbert Zongo and Others v Burkina Faso (reparations), § 55. 26