c00894 138. The Court considers that, as earlier found, the violations established have certainly affected the Applicant's wife and children, more particularly as he was their breadwinner and the degrading treatment suffered was in the presence of some of his children. However, the amount claimed is excessive. ln the circumstances and based on equity, the court grants Tanzania shillings one Million (TZS 1 ,000,000) to each of the indirect victims. B. Non-pecuniary reparations i. Restitution 139. The Applicant prays the Court to quash his conviction and sentence, and/or order that he should be released 140. The Applicant also prays the Court to make an orderfor restitution. He avers that compensation should be paid in place of restitution given that he cannot be returned to the situation before his deportation. 141. The Court notes, with respect to the prayer for the conviction and sentence to be quashed, and/or the Applicant be released, that the Applicant was arrested on g June 2006, charged in court on 15 June 2006 and released on 16 June 2006 without being convicted. The related claims have consequenfly become moot. 142. Regardingtheprayerforcompensationinplaceof restitution,theCourtconsiders that the generally accepted purpose of restitution is to bring ongoing violations to an end and restore the Applicant in the state prior to the violations. This remedy is therefore applicable where other measures such as compensation are not relevant or sufficient. Measures ordered to that effect include, for instance, the return of property or nullification of judgments.3z 32 Loayza-Tamayo v. Peru,lnter-American Court of Human R ights, Judgment on Reparations and Costs (27 November 19981; Papamich alopoutos Greece, App No. 14556/89, European Court of Human Rights, Judgment (Article 50) (Oct. 31, 95); Mohamm ed El Tayyib Bah v. Sierra Leone, Suit No ECWCCJ/APP/20/'l 3, ECOWAS Com nt ty Court of Jus tice, Judgment (May 4, 2015); and Genevieve Mbiankeu v. Cameroon 34 u