169. The Court will carry out a joint analysis of the last two pleas invoked by the Applicants. 170. From the analysis of the arguments raised above, it can be concluded that the Applicants seek to contest the Judgment, in the cited parts, understanding that the Court failed to assess the facts and apply the law by omitting decisions regarding the sought reliefs, namely reparation for the destroyed property and finding that the Respondent violated the Applicants’ right not to be subjected to discrimination. 171. But for no reason. 172. As the Applicants admit, the Court, in the Judgment issued, established that, “since the applicants have not demonstrated their ownership of the land in question, they cannot enjoy the protection granted by article 14 of the African Charter and that in this sense the alleged violation of the property right must be dismissed. Consequently, the need to ascertain whether or not there has been interference by the defendant State over the alleged property right and the nature of such interference is impaired. 173. Given the Court's conclusion that the Applicants have not proved their property right, all other claims, as they are dependent on the establishment of the violation of the property right, are thus dismissed.” (see §255 to 258). 174. Effectively, for the Court to determine the Respondent's conviction to repair damages caused to the Applicants, it required, first of all, that the Court finds the violation of the Applicants' property right. Without violation of the right, there is no right to reparation. 33