80. The Court notes its finding that the Respondent State violated the Applicant’s right to life under Article 4 and the right to dignity protected under Article 5 of the Charter with respect to the mandatory imposition of the death penalty. The Court, consequently, finds that the Respondent State’s responsibility has been established. The prayers for reparations will, therefore, be examined against these findings. A. Pecuniary reparations 81. The Applicant prays the Court for reparations and any other remedy that it may deem fit. 82. The Respondent State prays the Court to dismiss the Applicant’s prayers for reparations. *** 83. The Court notes that, pecuniary reparations include material and moral prejudice. The Applicant did not make any specific request in relation to pecuniary reparations. The Court notes that, reparations for material prejudice requires proof of the loss suffered, which the Applicant did not provide and therefore, he is not entitled to reparation for material prejudice. 84. However, reparations for moral prejudice is that which results from the suffering, anguish and changes in the living conditions of the victim and his family.21 As the Court has established in this judgment that the Applicant’s rights were violated by the imposition of the mandatory death sentence, resulting in psychological and emotional distress, he is entitled to damages for moral prejudice. 85. The Court has held that the assessment of quantum in cases of moral prejudice must be done in fairness and taking into account the 21 Mtikila v. Tanzania (reparations), supra, § 34; Cheusi v. Tanzania (judgment), supra, § 150 and Viking and Another v. Tanzania (reparations), supra, § 38. 19