that the Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the manner in which the Court of Appeal evaluated the evidence revealed manifest errors requiring this Court’s intervention. 52. In light of the foregoing, the Court dismisses this allegation and finds that the Respondent State has not violated Article 7(1) of the Charter. IX. REPARATIONS 53. The Applicant prays the Court to: i. Set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal and order his release; ii. Order payment of reparations for the time spent in prison; and iii. Order any other relief that the Court deems fit. *** 54. Article 27(1) of the Protocol provides that “If the Court finds that there has been violation of a human or peoples’ rights it shall make appropriate orders to remedy the violation, including the payment of fair compensation or reparation.” 55. As it has consistently held, the Court observes that, for reparations to be granted, the Respondent State should first be internationally responsible for the wrongful act. Second, causation should be established between the wrongful act and the alleged prejudice. Third, where it is granted, reparation should cover the prejudice suffered. Lastly, the Applicant bears the onus to justify the claims made.18 18 See Armand Guehi v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (7 December 2018) 2 AfCLR 477, § 157. See also, Norbert Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (reparations) (5 June 2015) 1 AfCLR 258, §§ 20-31; Lohé Issa Konaté v. Burkina Faso (reparations) (3 June 2016) 1 AfCLR 346, §§ 52-59; and Reverend Christopher R. Mtikila v. United Republic of Tanzania (reparations) (13 June 2014) 1 AfCLR 72, §§ 27-29. 13