counter to multiple provisions within the Charter, which are designed to safeguard accused persons’ liberty, fair trial, and equal treatment under the law. 39 117. In the instant case, the Court notes the Respondent State’s submission that the Applicant does not raise the violation of his right to bail, a point he does not contest. Nevertheless, the Court underscores that Section 148(5) of the CPA explicitly designates armed robbery, the offence for which the Applicant was convicted, as a non-bailable offence. As a result, even if the Applicant had raised the issue during domestic proceedings, the Respondent State’s courts would have been precluded by law from considering bail for armed robbery. The Respondent State has not furnished adequate justification for such a categorical exclusion, creating a situation where detention becomes the norm rather than the exception. 118. In view of the foregoing, the Court therefore finds that the Respondent State’s denial of the possibility of bail to the Applicant violated his right to liberty protected under Article 6 of the Charter as read jointly with Article 9(3) of the ICCPR. VIII. REPARATIONS 119. The Applicant prays the Court to grant him reparations for the violations he suffered including quashing his conviction and sentence and ordering his release. 120. The Respondent State prays that the Court should dismiss the request for reparations, contending that the Applicant was convicted and sentenced in accordance with the law. The Respondent State asserts that in order for the Court to order reparations, it must first find violation of human rights and establish that the said violation caused harm. In the present matter, the 39 Ibid, §§ 151-153. 29