104. The Respondent prayed the Court for the following: a. Declare the application inadmissible for failure of Applicant’s counsel to provide an address for service and lack of competence to act for him b. Decline jurisdiction to examine the decision delivered by the national court of Senegal. ………. 105. It is trite international law that any violation of human rights attracts reparation that should as much as possible put the victim in the situation he/she would have been had his right not been violated. This was reiterated by this Court when it held that, “the Court … asserts that reparation should as much as possible restore the Applicants to the position they were before the violation of their rights and it should be proportionate to the violations found depending on the circumstances of each case.” See also LA SOCIETE BEDIR SARL V. REPUBLIC OF NIGER, unreported ECW/CCJ/JUD/11/20. 106. The Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) similarly held that a State found responsible for a violation must take all measures “to wipe out all the consequences of the illegal act and re-establish the situation which would, in all possibility, have existed if that act had not been committed.” See L’USINE DE CHORZÓW (THE FACTORY AT CHORZÓW) (Merits) JUDGMENT OF 13 SEPTEMBER 1928, SERIES A, No 17, pg. 47 107. Such reparation can inter alia be via restituto integrum, monetary compensation as special or general damages or just satisfaction. Where the Court contemplates a monetary award, it is important to state that the object of award is 40