prejudice and proof thereof.25 The Court has also held that an Applicant bears the burden of providing evidence in support of his allegations.26 91. In relation to material prejudice, the Court further recalls that it is the duty of an applicant to provide evidence to support his/her claims for all alleged material loss. 92. In the present case, the Court observes that the Applicant merely makes claims and therefore does not substantiate his claims. For this reason, therefore, the Court dismisses the Applicant’s request to be paid the sum of Tanzanian Shillings One Million and Twenty Thousand (TZS 1 020 000) as reparation for material prejudice. ii. Moral prejudice 93. The Court notes that moral prejudice is that which results from suffering, anguish and from changes in the living conditions for the victim and his family as a result of a human rights violation.27 In this regard, the Court restates, in line with its jurisprudence, that prejudice is assumed in cases of human rights violations and the assessment of the amount to be awarded must be undertaken in fairness taking into account the circumstances of the case. 28 94. The causal link between the wrongful act and moral prejudice “can result from the human rights violation, as a consequence thereof, without a need 25 Nguza Viking (Babu Seya) and Another v. United Republic of Tanzania (reparations) (8 May 2020) 4 AfCLR 3, § 15 and Kijiji Isiaga v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 011/2015, Judgment of 25 June 2021 (reparations), § 20. 26 Msuguri v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 122; Elisamehe v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 97 and Guehi v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 15. 27 Mtikila v. Tanzania (reparations), supra, § 34; Cheusi v. Tanzania (judgment), supra, § 150 and Viking and Another v. Tanzania (reparations), supra, § 38. 28 Guehi v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 55; and Rashidi v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 58. 22