beaten during police interrogation when he was recording his statement. The Court reiterated its jurisprudence, that the burden of substantiating a claim for a violation of a human right rests with the person making the allegation. Although not relied on by the Applicant, the Court found invoked Articles 1 and 12 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the UNCAT), which deals with the said right in a greater detail. The Court recalled that general statements that a right has been violated are not sufficient for it to establish a violation. Since the Applicant had not provided proof of the violation of his right to dignity the Court held that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicant’s right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment as provided under Article 5 of the Charter and Articles 1 and 12 of the UNCAT. On reparations, the Court reiterated that if a violation is established, Article 27(1) of the Protocol empowers it to order an appropriate remedy. In the instant case the violation of the Applicant’s right to free legal representation as guaranteed under Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter read together with Article 14(3) (d) of ICCPR was established. The Applicant had, however, failed to establish a link between the violation established and the prejudice suffered. The Court, therefore, rejected this claim for reparations for material prejudice. However, the Court awarded the Applicant a symbolic amount of Tanzanian Shillings Five hundred (TZS 500) for moral prejudice arising from the violation of the right to free legal representation. The Court dismissed the Applicant’s prayer regarding the quashing of his conviction and sentence and setting him free, noting that although a violation of the Applicant’s right to free legal assistance was established, it had no impact on the Applicants’ conviction, sentence and incarceration. As such, there was no justification or compelling circumstance to warrant the vitiation of the conviction and the quashing of the sentence and setting the Applicant free. 8