herein, the Magistrate who made the order remanding plaintiff in Kirikiri maximum prison was not competent to try the allegation on the charge sheet, and the holding charge ceased to be effective in law because of that int1ux of time. Furthermore it is the position in law that the said process was not meant to keep the plaintiff perpetually custody but to be tried by an appropriate court thereby in making the process legal and competent. 56. No Court would allow such prolong detention to continue abating same. For that reason, the said detention illegal and this requirements Court holds the is hereby adjudged plaintiff has satisfied of proof, as per his claim, that his human violated upon pursuant In the circumstance, the right was to Article 9(4) of the Protocol of this Court as amended by the Supplementary 57. that without Protocol of 2005. the facts of this case have been shown as stated above that the defendants violated the human rights of the plaintiff as adjudged above in this case as per the reasons stated therein. DAIVIAGESjCOMPENSATION 58. In respect to the award of damages in paragraph 2 of the pleadings, it is well established principle of law that damages are generally awarded to place the claimant in the I?osition he/she would have been, had the friction complained of not taken place. As always it is trite that remedies arc payable in international Law where the Court has found for the pl<.li,l# iff who complained that his human rights has been violated by the defendant. Dinah Shelton page In 'Remedies 214, in International Human she observed that 'the primary upon Rights' by function of corrective justice is to rectify the harm done to a 'victim of wrongdoing and corrective justice generally aims at restitution or compensation for 21