28. In the instant case, the Applicants are in fact claiming reparations both for the moral
prejudice endured by them, and for the material prejudice suffered by the MBDHP; and
so, the Court will naturally examine the two types of damages.
29. The Court also notes that reparation may take several forms. According to Article 34
of the ILC Draft Articles above cited:
“Full reparation for the injury caused by the internationally wrongful act shall take the form of
restitution, compensation and satisfaction, either singly or in combination, in accordance with
the provisions of this chapter.®
30. Lastly, the Court notes that, in the instant case, the internationally wrongful act
generating
the
international responsibility of the Respondent State is the violation of
Article 7 of the Charter because this State “did not act with due diligence in apprehending,
prosecuting and putting
on trial those responsible for the murder of Norbert Zongo and
his three companions”’®. All these claims for reparation must therefore be considered and
assessed in relation to the wrongful act, and only in relation to this act.
31. In light of all the foregoing observations, the Court will now examine the different
claims for reparation filed by the Applicants.
® Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001, vol. Il (2); See in this respect: United Nations
Committee against Torture: Kepra Urra Guridi v. Spain, Decision of 17 May 2005, Communication No
212/2002, para. 6.8; Idem: Ali Ben Salem v. Tunisia, Decision of 7 November 2007, Communication No.
269/2005, para. 16.8: “The Committee considers that redress should cover all the harm suffered by the
victim, including restitution, compensation, rehabilitation of the victim and measures to guarantee that there
is no recurrence of the violations, while always bearing in mind the circumstances of each case”.
PClJ: The
Factory at Chorzow (Merits), Judgment of 13 September 1928, Series A, No. 17, p. 47; IACHR: Castillo
Paez v Peru (Reparations and Costs), Judgement of 27 November 1998, paras 48 and 51;IACHR: Barrios
Altos, Chumbipuma Aguirre and Others v. Peru (Reparations), Judgment of 30 November 2001, para 25;
IACHR: Caracazo v, Venezuela (Reparations and Costs), Judgment of 29 August 2002, para. 77
10 Judgment of the Court in this Matter dated 28 March 2014, para. 156.
a