consistently held that it is presumed and that the requirement of proof is not strict.34 142. The Court also restates that the measures that a state can take to remedy a violation of human rights includes restitution, compensation and rehabilitation of the victim, as well as measures to ensure non-repetition of the violations, considering the circumstances of each case.35 143. As this Court has earlier found, the Respondent State violated the Applicant’s right to life and to dignity, guaranteed under Articles 4 and 5 of the Charter. The Court, therefore, finds that the Respondent State’s responsibility has been established. The prayers for reparations will, therefore, be examined against these findings. A. Non-pecuniary reparations i. Restoration of liberty 144. The Applicant prays the Court to order the Respondent State to restore the Applicant’s liberty by releasing him from prison. * 145. The Respondent State opposes the Applicant’s prayer to be released from prison. It submits that this Cour is not an appellate court as it does not have criminal appellate jurisdiction whatsoever to quash the decision of the Respondent State’s national courts and release prisoners from prison. *** 34 Rajabu and Others v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 136; Armand Guehi v. Tanzania (merits and reparations) (7 December 2018) 2 AfCLR 477, § 55; Lucien Ikili Rashidi v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (28 March 2019) 3 AfCLR 13, § 119; Norbert Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (reparations), § 55. 35 Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v. Republic of Rwanda (reparations) (7 December 2018) 2 AfCLR 202, § 20. See also, Elisamehe v. Tanzania (judgment), supra, § 96. 34