000r?5 93. On the other hand, the Respondent State prayed the Court to deny the request for reparations and all other reliefs sought by the Applicant. 94. Article 27(1) of the Protocol provides that "if the Court finds that there has been violation of a human or peoples' rights, it shall make appropriate orders to remedy the violation including the payment of fair compensation or reparation." 95. As regards the Applicant's request that the Court quash the decision of the national courts, the Court reiterates its decision in the matter of Emest Francis Mtingwi v. Republic of Matawfl, that it is not an appeal court to quash or reverse the decision of domestic courts, therefore, it does not grant the request. 96. concerning the Applicant's request for an order of his release, the court recalls its decision in Alex Thomas v Tanzani*z where it stated that "an order for the Applicant's release from prison can be made only under very specific and/or, compelling circumstances". ln the instant case, the Applicant has not provided proof of such circumstances. consequently, the court does not grant the prayer, without prejudice to the Respondent applying such measure proprio motu. 97. with respect to other forms of reparation, Rule 63 of the Rules of court provides that "the Court shall rule on the request for reparation... by the same decision establishing the violation of a human and peoples' right or, if the circumstances so require, by a separate decision." 98. ln the instant case, the Court notes that none of the Parties made detailed submissions concerning the other forms of reparation. lt will therefore make a ruling on this question at a later stage in the procedure after having heard the parties. lx. 99. cosTs ln their submissions, the Applicant and the Respondent state did not make any statements concerning costs. 2l 22 See above note 2 Alex Thomas judgment, para. 157 23 @--