other hand, it should be ensured that the redress is fair, adequate, effective, sufficient, appropriate, victim-friendly and proportionate to the prejudice suffered.71 200. When placed in the context of human rights, this principle is mitigated. The objective here is not to punish the State or to enrich the victim by granting him an exorbitant and unreasonable compensation. It is particularly inappropriate to prescribe compensation when the prejudice suffered is as material as that the highest compensation would not be able to right the wrong. Where necessary, the most appropriate practice includes, among others, a public acknowledgement of the violation, rehabilitation and the building of memorial sites.72 In most similar situations, the Respondent State will be required to act promptly in order to bring an end to the violation and to prevent the occurrence of fresh violations. Whatever the case, the adoption of prompt and effective measures to finally put an end to the sufferings of the past may in themselves constitute an effective redress. 201. In the case in point, the main violation deals with the denial of nationality. It is a right which represents a strong symbol: that of both the legal and social recognition and also that of dignity. The Commission considers that for a violation as symbolic as that one, it is proper to prescribe an equally token redress. To be specific, the highest monetary compensation could not replace attacks on the dignity suffered by the Dioulas for decades. Incidentally, immediate rehabilitation is a much more appropriate redress. 202. On violations which are the result of this main violation, the Commission notes that they were resolved in a material loss, particularly of a monetary nature. For example, the expropriation of lands, the loss of promotion or potential employment, and the enjoyment of socio-economic development witnessed by Côte d’Ivoire. However, the Commission has already ruled that some of these prejudices are merely potential, particularly those relating to ownership and work. The others, such as equality, freedom of movement or participation can only be the subject of monetary compensation; unless it is proven that their violation has caused material or financial losses, which is not the case in this situation. 203. Furthermore, with regard to the high number of concerned victims, and considering that the Complainant has filed a dispute which is more of a public than personal interest, it would be illusory to envisage the prescription See Loayza Tamayo v. Peru (1998), Velasquez (1989), Aloeboetoe v. Surinam (1993) of the InterAmerican Human Rights Court; Djot Bayi v. Nigeria (2009) of the ECOWAS Court of Justice. See also in general, REDRESS Reaching for Justice: The right to reparation in the African Human Rights System (2013). 72 See Loayza Tamayo ; Velasquez ; Aloeboetoe, op. cit. 71 65