133. The Respondent State submits that the Applicant was tried, convicted and sentenced in accordance with law and that the Court of Appeal was satisfied that the case against the Applicant was proven beyond reasonable doubt. It thus avers that the allegation of a violation of Article 1 of the Charter should be dismissed for lack of merit. *** 134. The Court notes that it has consistently held that “when the Court finds that any of the rights, duties and freedoms set out in the Charter are violated, this necessarily means that the obligation set out under Article 1 of the Charter has not been complied with or that it has been violated.”45 135. ln the instant case, the Court has held that the Respondent State has violated Articles 4, 5, 7(1)(d) of the Charter. On the basis of the foregoing, the Court finds that the Respondent State also violated Article 1 of the Charter. VIII. REPARATIONS 136. The Court notes that Article 27(1) of the Protocol stipulates that “[i]f the Court finds that there has been violation of a human or peoples' right, it shall make appropriate orders to remedy the violation, including the payment of fair compensation or reparation.” 137. As per the Court’s jurisprudence, for reparations to be granted, the Respondent State should first be responsible for the wrongful act. Second, causation should be established between the wrongful act and the alleged prejudice. Furthermore, where granted, reparations should cover the full damage suffered. 45 Alex Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), § 135; Norbert Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (merits), § 199; Kennedy Owino Onyachi and another v. Tanzania (merits) (28 September 2017) 2 AfCLR 65, § 159. 39