intangible which flows from the alleged violation. This also admits general damages. The Court will therefore situate the claim for general damages within the contemplation of moral damages and analyse same accordingly. 103. The Court recalls it’s finding that the Respondent violated the Applicants’ rights to peaceful assembly consequent on which a right to redress accrues to the Current Applicants. Indeed any violation of a guaranteed right necessarily wrought with it a form of damage and in the instant case the harm or damage naturally flowing from the violation of a right to peaceful assembly is obvious distress and disappointment with possible frustration at the truncation of the Current Applicants’ lawful intention to gather for a just cause. 104. In this instance, the damage in form of pain of distress and frustration suffered from the prevention of the rally together with the agony, anguish and inconvenience that must have attended the hours of forceful detention at the museum, justify the award of compensation for moral damages suffered by the Applicants. The Court therefore holds that the Current Applicants are entitled to compensation in the sum of $15,000 (fifteen thousand US Dollars) as moral damages suffered as a result of the violation of their right to freely assemble. 105. With regards to exemplary damages, they are awards in tort and are designed not to compensate the Applicants for harm suffered but instead to punish and deter the Respondent’s culpable conduct. This Court has distinguished the award of exemplary damages in tort which in itself is punitive in nature from the position in human rights law. Being persuaded by the decision of the European Court of Human Rights to deny an award 32