91.ln its Response, the Respondent prays the Court to dismiss the Application in its entirety for being groundless, and therefore rule that the Applicant is not entitled to reparations. 92.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." 93.|n this respect, Rule 63 of the Rules provides that 'tlre Court shall rule on the request for the reparation by the same decision establishing the violation of a human and people's rights, or if the circumstances so require, by a separate decision"- 94.As regards the Applicant's prayer to be set free, the Court has established that such a measure could be directly ordered by the Court only in exceptional and compelling circumstancesl2. ln the instant case, the Applicant has not provided proof of such circumstances. Consequently, the Court dismisses the prayer. 95.The Court however notes that such finding does not preclude the Respondent from considering such measure on its own. 96. On the request to annul the conviction and sentence against the Applicant, the Court notes that it does not have the power to annul Decisions rendered by national courts. lt therefore dismisses that request. 97.The Court finally notes that none of the parties made submissions on the other forms of reparations. lt will therefore make a ruling on this question at a later stage of the procedure after having heard the parties. tz Alex Thontas United Republic of Tanzania (Application No 00512013/, Judgment of 20 November o. 2015, paragraph 157; Mohamed Abubakari v- United Republic of Tan 0O7DA13), Judgment of3 June 2016, paragraph 234. ,NA 22 4 G. i .--/' a-- ?l \ o/I z:/'