knowledge that an expert's opinion is usually based on his training and experience. In law an expert is permitted to give an opinion on the basis of hearsay information, provided that it relates to specific matters of which he does have personal knowledge. Thus a doctor can give evidence of what he was told by a patient about his condition for the purpose of evaluating his diagnosis; though his testimony is inadmissible to show what symptoms were actually being experienced by the patient; see R. V. Bradshaw (1985) 82 Cr. App. R. 79, CA. Thus PW2's testimony, whilst it cannot be utilised as confirming torture as counsel for the plaintiff submitted, yet it is relevant to confirm whether the plaintiff had any form of physical injury that he PW2 saw and referred him to an expert for treatment. 41. The evidence of the plaintiff on the wounds was direct and credible enough for this court to accept it. It is more probable than not that a person who has been detained and beaten for 22 days would suffer some form of physical harm. The court therefore finds as a fact that the plaintiff suffered physical injuries as he testified to. The court also finds as a fact that he underwent medical treatment in Dakar. 42. Concerning the medical treatment in the USA, having regard to the time lapse between the events and the treatment, there ought to be evidence of a direct link between the torture and the treatment. The court is not very certain about this. The medical reports-Exhibits D6-D8 do not provide any conclusive proof of the link between the torture that took place over two years before the treatment. 43. The fourth and final issue is whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages or compensation. The plaintiff claimed the sum of two million US dollars in damages for the problems he had and still has with his health, the injuries he suffered, loss of his manhood and others. In the case of Chief Ebrimah Manneh v. Republic of The Gambia, supra, decided on 5th June 2008, this court set out some principles that will guide it in the award of damages. Though by no means exhaustive, the principles set out in that decision are relevant to this case. Principally the object of an award in human rights violation is to vindicate the injured feelings of the victim and to restore his rights and human dignity. Monetary compensation may also be awarded in appropriate cases but the objective of such an award must not be punitive. The following cases decided by the European Court of Human Rights are of relevance to this discussion on damages: Ahmed Selmouni v. State of France (2005) CHR 237; and Miroslav Cenbauer v. Republic of Croatia (2005) CBR 424 , where the court awarded damages in circumstances similar to the present case, wherein the plaintiff was tortured. 44. Among the factors that the plaintiff testified to and urged the court should consider in assessing what damages to award are the fact that the plaintiff had to abandon his job and flee his country, the physical injuries he suffered and loss of manhood. The court has already found that he suffered physical injuries. The plaintiff did not talk about the mental and psychological torture that he pleaded, so it's taken to have been abandoned. There is no doubt that the plaintiff abandoned his job and fled the country. 45. lt is the question of whether the plaintiff suffered a loss of his manhood that there was some uncertainty about. The plaintiff pleaded and testified that the torture inflicted upon him during the period of his detention, particularly the electric shocks, affected his manhood. However, during the cross-examination he tried to be evasive when pressed to answer whether he was impotent or not. The court reproduces this excerpt from the cross-examination of the plaintiff by counsel for the defendant: Martins: "Are you impotent? Pw1: I have a problem with my manhood. Martins: No, are you impotent? Yes I am, no I am not. Pw1: I cannot clarify my potency. Martins: Okay, you have not been able to ascertain it. Pw1: Since then I have not had any medical examination, but what I know is that I have problem with my manhood. Martins: If you don't mind since you put this in evidence; is your wife with you right now? Pw1: In the United States? 7