it could order such a measure directly, only in specific and compelling circumstances which have not been established in the instant case. 37. The second question for which the United Republic of Tanzania is seeking clarification is, on whethei the violations found are what is stated in the text of the judgment or whether the violation to be remedied should be Oll the aspect of "specifically precluding the reopening of the defence case and the retrial of the Applicant". The United Republic of Tanzania also seeks to understand how to remedy the violation. 38. The Cour1 notes that point vii of the operative provisions of the Judgment specified the provisions that the United Republic of Tanzania was found to have violated, that is, Articles 1 and 7(1) (a), (c) and (d) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights and Article 14(3) (d) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and consequently it should take all necessary measures to remedy these violations. 39. The Court clarifies that the expression "all necessary measures" includes the release of the Applicant and any other measure that would help erase the consequences of the violations established and restore the pre-existing situation and re-establish the rights of the Applicant. 40. The Court further clarifies that the expression "remedy all violations found" should therefore mean to "erase the effects of the violations established" through adoption of the measures indicated in the preceding paragraph. 41. The third question for which the United Republic of Tanzania is seeking an interpretation is on the word "precluding". 42. The word precluding means "preventing, banning or forbidding". It is therefore clear that the Court is prohibiting certain action, specifically that the United Republic of Tanzania should not retry the Applicant or re-open the defence case. As mentioned before, this is because doing so would result in prejudice to the