considers that the dispute over a right as vital as the recognition of legal status, and of nationality in particular, must be subject to an independent, fair, impartial and equitable procedure. Only one organ of the State cannot at the same time be a judge in and a party to the granting of nationality. That is more so the reason why the recognition of the right to nationality is henceforth beyond the exclusive remit of the State which must comply with the international rules to which it has subscribed. Consequently, the judge must exercise a partition in the nationality dispute to independently and impartially determine whether the State has discharged its obligations. Côte d’Ivoire also recognizes this necessity because, under the provisions of its nationality Code, the State provides that civil law judges have jurisdiction to hear any nationality dispute. Incidentally, the Commission finds the considered application relevant and useful. Implementation of Reforms on Rural Land Ownership 197. The Commission only ruled on one potential violation of Article 14 with regard to the Dioulas. However, it admitted an actual violation in cases where victims would be subject to a prejudice already suffered as a result of the application of the Rural Land Act before the reforms of 2004 and 2013. In these circumstances, it is proper to prescribe an effective implementation of reforms as well as redress of prejudices which would have been suffered as a result of the application of the former provisions of the Law. Payment of Damages 198. In accordance with the established jurisprudence of the Commission, the violation of rights protected by the Charter entitles victims to damages, including monetary remedy.69 Having said that, the Commission considers that the Complainant must provide an evaluation and prove the prejudice suffered.70 199. In this Communication, the nature of the violations is ample evidence of the prejudice suffered. However, since the Complainant has not quantified the said prejudice, the Commission will bear the responsibility of providing it. In this regard, the Commission notes that the main aim of the redress is founded on the restitutio in integrum principle which requires that the victim is reinstated in the situation prior to the violation. Where it is impossible to reinstate him, any violation will be resolved through compensation. On the See Good v. Botswana op. cit. Para 245 ; Antoine Bissangou v. Congo Communication 253/02 (2006) AHRLR 80 (ACHPR 2006) ; Embga Mekongo Louis v. Cameroon Communication 59/91 (2000) RADH 60 (CADHP 1995) para 2. 70 See Good op. cit. 69 64