118. The Respondent State in its submission prayed the Court to: i. Find that it does not have jurisdiction to order the release of the Applicant; and ii. Dismiss the Applicant claim for reparation as he is not entitled to any reparation. *** 119. Article 27 for the protocol provides that: “if the Court finds that there has been violation of a human or people’s rights it shall make appropriate orders to remedy the violation, including the payment of fair compensation or reparation.” 120. The Court considers that, as it has consistently held, for reparations to be granted, the Respondent State should first be internationally responsible of the wrongful act. Second, causation should be established between the wrongful act and the alleged prejudice. Furthermore, and where it is granted, reparation should cover the full prejudice suffered. Finally, the Applicant bears the onus to justify the claims made.33 121. As this Court has earlier found, the Respondent State violated the Applicant’s rights to life, a fair trial, and not be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment protected under Articles 4, 7, and 5 of the Charter respectively. Based on these findings, the Respondent State’s responsibility has been established, and the prayers of the Parties will be examined thereon. 122. As stated earlier, an applicant bears the burden of providing evidence to support his/her claims for material prejudice. The Court has also previously 33 Amini Juma v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), § 141; Armand Guehi v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), § 15; Norbert Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (reparations) (5 June 2015) 1 AfCLR 258, §§ 20-31. 32