Advocate Ibrahima Kane, Counsel; and US$50 for Prosper Farama, Counsel. The Court
therefore grants the claim for reimbursement
in favour of the Applicants in the total
amount of US$5,195,37 equivalent to 3,135,405.80 CFA
F at
Central Bank of West
African States (BCEAO) rate.
Vil. MEASURES OF SATISFACTION AND GUARANTEES OF NON- REPETITION
A) Measure of satisfaction: publication of the Court’s decision
95. In their Brief on Reparations, the Applicants prayed the Court to order “the publication
of [its] Judgment in the Official Gazette, the national Daily Sidwaya and two of the most
read
private
newspapers
in the country,
in order that the
national
public opinion,
particularly judicial authorities and security officials [might] be aware of the wrong caused
to the State and its human rights protection system by the poor functioning of its public
justice and security services’.
96. In its Brief in Response, the Respondent State noted that, in principle, it finds no
inconvenience with publishing the Court's decision, but argued that in international human
rights law, “measures of satisfaction should not lead to humiliation of the State against
which human
rights violations had been established”.
It submitted further that, in the
instant case, the reasons given by the Applicants in support of their request for publication
“are motivated more by a desire to humiliate the State of Burkina Faso and tarnish its
image, than promoting and protecting human rights”.
The Respondent State therefore
prays the Court to reject the measure of satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition as
requested by the indirect victims as inadequate and irrelevant.
97. The Court notes that the principle itself of publication of the Court's decision is not in
dispute between the parties.
98. The Court also notes that the publication of decisions of international human
courts as a measure of satisfaction is of current practice®®.
35 See in particular: ACHR:
Thus,
rights
in the case of Rev.
Massacre du Plan de Sanchez v. Guatemala, (Reparations) Judgment of 19
November 2004, paras 102 and 103; IACHR: Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama
Merits, Reparations and Costs), Judgment of 12 August 2004, para. 248.
(Preliminary
Objections,
_