the prejudice and proof thereof.84 Further, this Court has held that an
Applicant bears the burden of providing evidence to support his/her claims
for material prejudice.85
187. In the instant case, the Applicant simply prayed the Court to pay reparations
in such amount as the Court deems fit. He has not indicated the nature of
the material prejudice that he has suffered and how this is linked with the
violation of his rights under Articles 4, 5 and 7 of the Charter and Article
36(1) of the VCCR. In any event, the Applicant has not supported his
prayers with proof of the loss incurred.
188. In the circumstances, the Court, therefore, does not grant reparation for
material prejudice to the Applicant.
ii. Moral prejudice
189. While the Applicant does not specifically refer to moral prejudice, he prays
for the Court to order the Respondent State to pay reparations in such
amount as the Court deems fit for the severe hardships that he has suffered
as a result of the breach of his rights under the Charter. The Applicant also
submits that he has suffered severe hardships as a result of the fourteen
(14) years of imprisonment, including eight (8) years on death row which
severely impacted his family life.
190. The Court recalls that, moral prejudice is that which results from the
suffering, anguish and changes in the living conditions for the victim and his
family.86 In the present case, the Court has earlier found that the length of
the Applicant’s pretrial detention was not reasonable and he was placed on
the death row following proceedings that did not abide by fairness. These
84
Nguza Viking (Babu Seya) and Another v. United Republic of Tanzania (reparations) (8 May 2020) 4
AfCLR 3, §15 and Kijiji Isiaga v. Republic of Tanzania, AfCtHPR, Application No. 011/2015, Judgment
of 25 June 2021 (reparations), § 20.
85 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.
86 Mtikila v. Tanzania (reparations), supra, § 34; Cheusi v. Tanzania (judgment), supra, § 150 and Viking
and Another v. Tanzania (reparations), supra, § 38.
53