xii. Any other orders the Court shall deem necessary; and xiii. The Court Applies principle of proportionality when considering the award for compensation to be granted to the Applicant. 125. The Respondent State did not respond to the Applicant’s submission on reparations. *** 126. The Court recalls Article 27(1) of the Protocol which 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 the fair compensation or reparation. 127. The Court considers that, as it has consistently held, for reparations to be granted, the Respondent State should first be internationally responsible of the wrongful act and causation should be established between the wrongful act and the alleged prejudice.69 Furthermore, and where granted, reparation should cover the full damage suffered. The Applicant also bears the onus of justifying the claims made.70 128. In the present Application, the Court has found that the Respondent State violated the Applicant’s rights to life, to dignity and to a fair trial as guaranteed under Articles 4, 5 and 7(1)(c) of the Charter as read together with Article 14(3)(d) of the ICCPR as well as 7(1)(d) of the Charter, respectively. The Court, therefore, finds that the Respondent State’s responsibility has been established. The Applicant is, therefore, entitled to reparations commensurate with the extent of the established violations. 69 XYZ v. Republic of Benin (judgment) (27 November 2020) 4 AfCLR 49, § 158 and Sébastien Germain Ajavon v. Republic of Benin (reparations) (28 November 2019) 3 AfCLR 196, § 17. 70 Norbert Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (reparations) (5 June 2015) 1 AfCLR 258, §§ 20-31; and Reverend Christopher R. Mtikila v. United Republic of Tanzania (reparations) (13 June 2014) 1 AfCLR 72, §§ 27-29. 35