160. The Court recalls its established case-law where it has held that moral prejudice is presumed in cases of human rights violations, and the quantum of damages in this respect is assessed based on equity, considering the circumstances of the case.47 161. The Court has established that the Applicant’s rights under Article 5 of the Charter and under Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter as read together with Article 14(3)(d) of the ICCPR have been violated. The Applicant is entitled to moral damages because there is a presumption that the Applicant has suffered some form of moral prejudice due to the said violations.48 162. Therefore, in view of these circumstances and exercising its discretion in equity, the Court awards the Applicant the amount of Three Hundred Thousand Tanzanian Shillings (TZS 300,000) for moral prejudice he suffered in relation to the violations established. B. Non-pecuniary reparations i. Restoration of liberty 163. The Applicant prays the Court to restore justice where it was overlooked and quash both the conviction and sentence imposed upon him and set him at liberty. * 164. The Respondent State opposes the Applicant’s prayer to be released from prison. The Respondent State, referring to this Court’s jurisprudence in Alex Thomas v. Tanzania, submits that the order for the release of an Applicant can only be made under special and compelling circumstances. 47 Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (reparations), supra, § 55; Umuhoza v. Rwanda (reparations), supra, § 59; Jonas v. Tanzania (reparations), supra, § 23. 48 Cheusi v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 151. 39