Burundian which means that the Respondent State was aware that the detainee was a foreign national charged with an offence that carried a heavy sentence. The Court is cognisant of the Respondent State’s averment that the lack of communication with the receiving State was meant to safeguard the principle of non-refoulement since the Applicant was a refugee. However, the Court considers that, as earlier expounded in this judgment, communication to the receiving State as contemplated under Article 36 of the VCCR is not contrary to the principle of non-refoulement by which a refugee should not be expelled to his country of origin or any other country where he may be at risk of jeopardy. As such, the Respondent State’s averment in this respect does not stand. 180. In light of the above, the Court holds that the Respondent State failed to notify the Applicant of his right to consular assistance despite knowing that he was a foreign detainee. As such, the Applicant was deprived of the opportunity to seek consular assistance to facilitate his defence. 181. Consequently, the Court holds that the Respondent State violated the Applicant’s right to consular assistance by failing to inform him of his rights, thereby violating Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter as read with Article 36(1) of the VCCR. VIII. REPARATIONS 182. The Applicant prays the Court to grant the following measures: i. Release him from prison; ii. Hold a resentencing hearing in the alternative; and iii. Pay reparations in such amount as the Court deems fit. He submits that he has suffered severe hardships as a result of the breach of his rights under the Charter and subsequent fourteen (14) years of imprisonment, including eight (8) years on death row which has severely impacted his family life. 51