Viking and Another v United Republic of Tanzania [2020] AfCHPR 45 (8 May 2020)

0sfi29 t AFRICAN UNION UNION AFRICAINE o§-st rlâ.frl UNIAO AFRICANA AFRICAN COURT ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES'RIGHTS COUR AFRICAINE DES DROITS DE L'HOMME ET DES PEUPLES THE MATTER OF NGUZA VTKING (BABU SEYA) AND JOHNSON NGUZA (pApr KOCHA) V ôootaors ot t o5 lroro UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (oooaQ r- ôooarq)u APPLICATION No. 006/2015 JUDGMENT (REPARATTONS) I MAY 2020 t, rlt\ ô 0t"rûâ90 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ................. I. SUBJECTOFTHEAPPLICATION.................... II. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE MATTER...... III. SUMMARY OF THE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT...... IV. PRAYERS OF THE PARTIES...... v. REP4R4T|ONS................. A. Pecuniaryreparations... i. Materialloss................ a. Loss of income and life p1an............... b. Legal fees at the national courts.......... ii. Moral prejudice a. Moral prejudice suffered by the App|icant................. b. Moral prejudice to indirect victims B. Non-pecuniaryreparations... i. Guarantees of non-repetition and report on implementation ii. Measures of satisfaction VI. COSTS A. Legal fees related to proceedings before this Court.............. B. Communication and stationerycosts............. VII. OPERATIVE PART .,. 1 ,.2 ,.2 .--J ,.4 ,.6 ,7 ,.7 .7 .9 l0 l0 t2 l5 l7 19 0*ùr8s The Court composed of: Sylvain ORÉ, President; Ben KIOKO, Vice-president; Rafaâ BEN ACHOUR, Ângelo V. MATUSSE, Suzanne MENGUE, M-Thérèse IVUKAMULISA, Tujilane R. CHIZUI\4|LA, Chafika BENSAOULA, Btaise TCHtKAyA, Stella l. ANUKAM, Judges; and Robert ENO, Registrar ln accordance with Article 22 of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights (hereinafter referred to as "the Protocol") and Rule I (2) of the Rules of court (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), Justice lmani D. ABOUD, a national of the United Republic of Tanzania, did not hear the Application. In the Matter of. Nguza VIKING (Babu SEYA) AND Johnson NGUZA (Papi KOCHA) represented by Advocate Donald O. DEYA, Pan African Lawyers Union (PALU) VC TSUS UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA represented by Dr. Clement J. MASHAMBA, Solicitor General, Office of the Solicitor General; l\ils. Sarah MWAIPOPO, Director, Constitutional Affairs and Human Rights, Attorney General's Chambers; t lVlr. Baraka LUVANDA; Ambassador, Head, Legal Unit, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, East Africa, Regional and lnternational Cooperation; 0 tiûit8I IV Ms. Nkasori SARAKIKYA, Principal State Attorney, Attorney General's Chambers; ttllr. Mark MULWAIMBO, Senior State Attorney, Attorney General's Chambers; VI Ms. Aidah KISUMO, Senior State Attorney, Attorney General's Chambers; and vI Mr. Elisha SUKA, Foreign Service Officer, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, East Africa, Regional and lnternational Cooperation. after deliberation, renders the following Judgment I. SUBJECT OF THE APPLICATION Pursuant to the judgment of the Court on the merits of 23 March 2018, Messrs Nguza Viking and Johnson Nguza (hereinafter referred to as the first and second Applicant respectively)") filed on 23 August 2018, their written submissions for reparations. ln the said judgment, this Court found that the United Republic of Tanzania (hereinafter referred to as "the Respondent State) had violated Articles 1 and 7(1)(c) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (hereinafter referred to as "the Charter"). II. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE MATTER 2. ln the Application No. 006/2015, the Applicants alleged that their right to a fair trial had been violated by the Respondent State by reason of failure to provide them with copies of witness statements and failure to call material witnesses as well as failure to facilitate the first Applicant to conduct a test as to his impotence. The Applicants submitted that this happened in the course of 0üs38 T proceedings in the national courts. Further, that this resulted in their conviction for the offences of rape and unnatural acts and subsequent sentence to a term of life imprisonment. 3. On 23 March 2018, the Court rendered the judgementwhose operative part read as follows: "vii. FindsthattheRespondentStatehasviolatedArticleT(1)(c)oftheCharter as regards: the failure to provide the Applicants copies of witness statements and to call material witnesses; the failure to facilitate the First Applicant to conduct a test as to his impotence; consequently finds that the Respondent State has violated Article 1 of the Charter; ... x. Orders the Respondent State to take all necessary measures to restore the Applicants' rights and inform the Court, within six (6) months from the date of this Judgment of the measures taken. xi. Defers its ruling on the Applicants' prayer on the other forms of reparation, as well as its ruling on Costs; and xii. AIIows the Applicants, in accordance with Rule 63 of its Rules, to file their written submissions on the other forms of reparation within thirty (30) days from the date of notification of this judgment; and the Respondent State to file its Response within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of the Applicants' written submissions." 4. This present application for reparations is based on the above mentioned judgment. III. SUMMARY OF THE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT 5. On 27 November 2018, the Registry transmitted a certified true copy of the judgment on merits to the Parties. 6. On 23'August 2018, the Applicants flled their written submissions for reparations and this was served on the Respondent State on 24 August 2018. J 0ri*ii8 ô On 18 March 2020, the Respondent State filed its Response to the Applicants' submissions on reparations. 7. The Court also notes that the Respondent State filed a notice of withdrawal of its Declaration under Article 34(6) of the Protocol allowing Non-governmental organizations and individuals to file cases before the Court on November 21, 20'19, at the African Union Commission. The Court recalls its decision in lngabire Victoire v. Republic of Rwandal that the withdrawal of a Declaration does not have a retroactive effect and therefore has no bearing on an Application pending before it. The Court thus concludes from the above that the withdrawal of the Respondent State has no bearing on the present application. 8. Pleadings were closed on 16 December 2019 and the Parties were duly notified. On 'l 0 February 2020, the pleadings were subsequently reopened upon the request of the Respondent State of g January 2020 for extension of time to file a Response to the submissions on reparations. The Respondent State filed its Response on 18 March 2020. !V. PRAYERS OF THE PARTIES 9. The Applicants pray the Court to grant them the following reparations a Pecuniary reparations For Nguza Viking and Johnson Nguza as a DirectVictim: i. Moral prejudice. the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) to each as a direct victim of moral prejudice suffered. For indirect victims: ii. Amount of five thousand dollars ($5,OOO; payable to Mr. Yannick Nguza; tlngabire Victoire Umuhoza v. Republic of Rwanda (urisdiction) (2016) 1 AfCLR 540 § 67 00,139§ Amount of five thousand dollars ($5,OOO; payable to the Second Applicant's daughter, Asha Johnson Nguza; IV Amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000) payable to Nasri Ally, Amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000) payable to Francis Nguza, VI Amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000) payable to the second Applicant's fiancé, Mariam Othman Bongi. For Counsel's legal fees vI Legal aid fees for 300 hours of legal work: 200 hours for two Asslstant Counsels and 100 hours for the lead Counsel. This is charged at one hundred dollars ($100) per hour for lead Counsel and fifÿ dollars ($50) per hour for the Assistants. The total amount for all this being ten thousand ($10,000) for the lead Counsel and ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for the two Assistants. Transport, fees and stationery vl tx Postage amounting to two hundred dollars ($2001, Printing and photocopying amounting to two hundred dollars ($2001. b. Principle of proportionality x. The Applicants pray that the Court applies the principle of proportionality when considering all the Applicants' submissions c. Measures of satisfaction xi. [T]hat the government publishes in the national gazette the decision on the merit of the main Application within one month of delivery of judgment as a measure of satisfaction. d. Guarantees of non-repetition $li\,384 xI The Applicants pray that the Respondent guarantees non- repetition of these violations to them and that they are requested to report back to this Honourable Court every six months until they satisfy the orders this Court shall make when considering submissions for reparations." 10. The Respondent State prays the Court to dismiss the Application in its entirety and to order any other relief in its favour that the Court deems fit. V. REPARATIONS 1 l. Article 27(1) of the Protocol provides that, "lf 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". 12. The Court recalls its earlierjudgments and restates its position that, "to examine and assess Applications for reparation of prejudices resulting from human rights violations, it takes into account the principle according to which the State found guilty of an internationally wrongful act is required to make full reparation for the damage caused to the victim."2 'l 3. The Court also restates that reparation "...must, as far as possible, erase all the consequences of the wrongful act and restore the state which would presumably have existed if that act had not been committed."3 l4. Measures that a State would take to remedy a violation of human rights includes, notably, restitution, compensation and rehabilitation of the victim, 2 Application No. 005/2013. Judgment of 410712019 (Reparations), Alex Thomas v lJnited Republic of- Tanzania ("Alex Thomas v Tanzania (Reparations)"), § 11, Umuhoza v Republic of Rwanda, (reparations) (2018) 2 AfCLR 202, § 1 9. 3 Mohamed Abubakari v Tanzania (Reparations), § 20, A/ex Thomas v Tanzania (Reparations), § 12, Wilfred Onyango v. Tanzania, § 16. Ingabire Umuhoza v Rwanda (Reparations), § 20, Lucien lkili v Tanzania (Merits and Reparations), § 1 18. jiügg CI satisfaction and measures to ensure non-repetition of the violations taking into account the circumstances of each case.a 15. The Court reiterates that with regard to material prejudice, the general rule is that there must be existence of a causal link between the alleged violation and the prejudice caused and the burden of proof is on the Applicant who has to provide evidence to justiÿ his/her prayers.s Exceptions to this rule include moral prejudice, which need not be proven, since presumptions are made in favour of the Applicant and the burden of proof shifts to the Respondent State. 16. The Court having found violations of Articles 1 and 7(1)(c) of the Charter in the judgment on the merits of 23 [t/arch 2018, the Applicants, pray for pecuniary reparations for (i) material loss, (ii) moral preludice for themselves and indirect victims and non-pecuniary reparations in the form of: (a) restitution of liberty; (b) guarantees of non-repetition and (c) measures of satisfaction. A. Pecuniary reparations Material loss a. Loss of income and life plan 'l 7. The Applicants submit that their music careers were disrupted as a consequence of their accusation of "rape and gang rape" which led to their arrest and imprisonment for fourteen (14) years. l8. According to the Applicants, they sold their "family house" in order to pay for the legal fees accrued during their appeal before the Court of Appeal of Tanzania. They further argue that prior to their imprisonment, they had musical instruments which they used during their performances but the said instruments "are now unusable due to the conditions they were in." a Mohamed Abubakari v Tanzania (Reparations), § 21, Alex Thomas v Tanzania (RepaÉtions) § 13, lngabire Umuhoza v Rwanda (Reparations), § 20. 5 Tanganyika Law Society, the Legal and Human Rights Centre v Tanzania, Application 009/2011, Reverend Christopher R. Mtikila v- United Republic of Tanzania,011l2011 (Consolidated Applications), (Reparations) (2014), 1 AfCLR 72, § 40: Mohamed Abubakari v Tanzania (Reparations), § 22. 0uû?82 19. The Applicants further aver that their life plan was disrupted and that they have been unable to achieve their plans and goals as a result of their arrest, trial and imprisonment. They submit that they had plans to start their own school of music and open a music studio to develop the talents of the youths in Tanzania. 20. The Applicants submit that they were the "financial providers" for their indirect victims and that after their arrest, their indirect victims lived in deplorable conditions which would not have happened had they not been in detention. 21. Consequently, citing Lohé lssa Konate v Burkina Faso, they request that "... in the absence of documentary evidence supporting a financial monetary claim brought as a direct violation of the Charter, then it would be appropriate to consider the matter in terms of equity in awarding. . . " the material damages for loss of income and life plan. 22. fhe Applicants did not submit a specific amount in this regard except for a request for five thousand United States Dollars (US$s,000) to Joffrey Gondwe's family for material prejudice suffered. 23. Citing Christopher Mtikila v Tanzania (reparations)6, the Respondent State argues that it is not enough that a violation was found but rather the Applicants must prove the damages that the State is required to repair. 24. The Respondent State argues that the Applicants neither provided any sale agreement to prove the sale of their house nor did they provide any documentary evidence of ownership of musical instruments as alleged. 25. The Respondent State also argues that life plans must be expressed in terms of projects and not just in terms of thoughts. ln this regard, the Respondent State submits that the Court should dismiss this prdÿer. .'r. 6 Mtikila v Tanzania supra note 5 I ùitull§ I 26. The Court reiterates that with regard to material prejudice, the general rule is that there must be existence of a causal link between the alleged violation and the prejudice caused and the burden of proof is on the Applicant who has to provide evidence to justify his/her prayers. T 27 . Ihe Court notes that the Applicants have not established the link between the violations found in the judgment on the merits and the material loss they claim to have suffered. Moreover, they have neither provided proof of the ownership of a house or its sale, or proved that the musical instruments were unusable nor have they brought any evidence of plans to establish a school of music. Lastly, they have not adduced any documentary evidence of their earnings before their arrest. 28. The Court therefore holds that the Applicants have not justified their claim for compensation for material prejudice resulting from the loss of income and life plan and dismisses the prayer thereof. b. Legal fees at the national courts 29. The Applicants submit that they should be granted United States' Dollars twenty thousand (US$ 20,000) for legal fees that they incurred during their trial and because they had to sell their house to pay for legal fees at the Court of Appeal. 30. The Respondent State avers that the Applicants have not proved that they sold their house to pay for the legal fees and thus prays the Court to dismiss this prayer. 31. The Court notes that the Applicants have not justified their claim for compensation for material prejudice resulting from the legal fees incurred at the national courts and thus rejects the claim. 7 Supra note 5 32. ln light of the foregoing, the Court dismisses the Applicants'prayer for reparations resulting from the alleged material loss. CuL,Ê80 Moral prejudice a. Moral prejudice suffered by the Applicants 33. The Applicants claim that they suffered undue stress from the lack of provision of copies of the witness statements by the Respondent State. And the first Applicant claims that he suffered mental and emotional anguish as a result of the failure of the Respondent State to conduct his test for impotence. Furthermore, the first Applicant claims that he suffered a wide range of illnesses such as hypertension, diabetes and tuberculosis while the second Applicant submits that he contracted tuberculosis due to prison food, sleeping conditions and how the inmates were treated. 34. According to the Applicants, the nature of the offences they were charged with, that is, "rape and gang rape" also caused them undue stress especially as they were at the peak "... of their music careers and they were respected in the music industry and in the society in general." They claim that "their names were tarnished in the newspapers and televisions all across East and Central Africa and they were labelled as rapists". Further, the Applicants contend that they "lost their social status in the community due to their imprisonment and have, in turn, lost their social standing." 35. The Applicants pray that the Court, in calculatlng the moral damages, should apply the principle of equity and take into account the severity of the violations, the impact these had on them and the overall damage to their health. They further ask the Court to consider the period they were imprisoned and grant reparations that would alleviate the suffering that they endured. t0 Ori*f ?g 36. Consequently, the Applicants urge the Court to grant them an award of United States Dollars Twenÿ Thousand (US$20,000) each in equity as reparation for the moral prejudice they suffered for the violations established. 37. The Respondent State submits that the quantification of moral prejudice should be done in equity on a case to case basis as decided in Norbert Zongo et al. v Burikna Faso.8 ln this regard, lt contends that the Applicants requested for moral prejudice in United State Dollars even though they were working in Tanzania before their arrest and thus earning in Tanzanian shillings. Therefore, the Respondent State argues that the prayer for moral prejudice in United States Dollars is unjustified and should be dismissed. 38. The Court notes that, moral prejudice is that which results from the suffering, anguish and changes in the living conditions for the victim and his family.s 39. The Court further notes that the Applicants have invoked its equitable jurisdiction and made a claim for compensation amounting to United States Dollars Twenty Thousand ($20,000) each 40. ln its judgment on the merits, the Court concluded that there was a violation of the Applicants' right to defence. This is in relation to the failure of the Respondent State to provide the Applicants with copies of witness statements and failure to call material witnesses as well as failure to facilitate the first Applicant to conduct a test as to his impotence. This Invariably caused the Applicants anguish and despair. 41. The Court finds that this entitles the Applicants to compensation for moral prejudice. The Court has also held that the assessment of quantum in cases of 8 Zongo v Burkina Faso supra note 5. s Reverend Christopher R. Mtikila v Tanzania Supra note 4, § 34. lngabire Umuhoza v. Rwanda (Reparations), § 59, Mohamed Abubakari v Tanzania (Reparations), § 43, A/ex Thomas v Tanzania, § It Strui:?8 moral prejudice must be done in fairness and taking into account the circumstances of the case.10 ln such instances, affording lump sums would generally apply as the standard.ll 42. Consequently, and based on discretion, the Court awards the first Applicant an amount of Tanzanian Shillings Twenÿ Million (TZS 20,000,000) given that he was denied a test as to his impotence in addition to the other violations. The Court further, awards the second Applicant, an amount of Tanzanian Shillings Five Million (TZS 5,000,000) as moral damages. b. Moral prejudice to indirect victims 43. Relying on the Zongo case, the Applicants seek compensation for their dependents as indirect victims as follows: i. Amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000) payable to Mr. Yannick Nguza; ii. Amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000) payable to the Second Applicant's daughter, Asha Johnson Nguza, iii. Amount of five thousand dollars ($5,OOO1 payable to Nasri Ally, iv. Amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000$) payable to Francis Nguza, v. Amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000) payable to the second Applicant's fiancé, Mariam Othman Bongi." 44-fhe Applicants submit that the above mentioned persons who are "sons, daughters, brothers, grandchildren and nephews to the Applicanls" were emotionally distressed by the physical condition that they were forced to endure throughout their arrest and incarceration. That the indirect victims depended on the Applicants for financial support and also that they acted as their role models. 10 See Norbeft Zongov Burkina Faso suBra note4, § 61, Alex Thomas v Tanzania (Reparations), §40, Mohamed Abuba4ari v Tanzania (Reparations), § 44. 11 Norbeft Zongo v Burkina Faso supra note 4, § 62, Alex Thomas v Tanzania (Reparations), § 40, Mohamed Abubakari v Tanzania (Reparations), § 44. $tlü'à?'l 45. According to the Applicants, the indirect victims also suffered emotional distress when they sold their house so âs to pay for their legal fees as the indirect victims were forced to move from place to place in search of shelter. 46. According to the Applicants, Mariam Bongi who is the second Applicant's fiancé had to raise their daughter - Asha Johnson Nguza alone without the emotional and social support of the second Applicant. Further, that their close friend, Mr. Jofrey Gondwe (now deceased) assisted the Applicants with payment of the legal fees durlng their trial and suffered emotional distress after hearing of the ". . . worsening mental and emotional condition of the Applicants... " 47. The Respondent State submits that the Applicants have not provided proof to demonstrate that they had dependants. lt further argues that "an abrupt introduction of Mr. Yannick Nguza, Asha Johson Nguza, Nasri Ally, Francis Nguza and Mariam Othman Bongi without documentary proof does not establish their status as indirect victims." 48. The Respondent State further argues that the introduction of Asha Johnson Nguza as the second Applicant's daughter is not proof of filiation. lVloreover, referring to the matter oI Aslakhanoya y Russra and the Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation of lnternational Human Rights law and serious violations of lnternational Humanitarian Law, it submits that; "for a person to enjoy the status of indirect victim, he must be a relative to the direct victim with documentary proof thereof." lt thus argues that fiancées and friends do not fall within the threshold of persons accorded status as indirect victims. Consequently, it prays for the Court to dismiss the prayer herein. l3 SSUâ76 49. The Court recalls that compensation for non-material loss also applies to relatives of the victims of human rights violation as a result of the indirect suffering and distress. As it held inthe Zongo case, "it is apparent that the issue as to whether a given person may be considered as one of the closest relatives entitled to reparation has to be determined on a case-by-case basis, depending on the specific circumstances of each case".12 50. ln this regard, the Court, in its jurisprudence has noted that spouses, children and parents may claim the status of indirect victims.l3 51. The Court has also stated that spouses should produce marriage certificates or any equivalent proof, children are to produce their birth certificates or any other equivalent evidence to show proof of their affiliation and parents must produce an attestation of paternity or maternity or any other equivalent proof.la 52. The Court recalls that even after reopening of pleadings twice that is on 10 February 2019 and on 9 March 2020 and requesting for the parties to file further evidence, the Applicants failed to do so. 53. The Court further notes that the Applicants have not provided any explanation or document indicating who the indirect victims are and their actual relation to them with the exception of lVlariam Othman Bongi and Asha Johnson Nguza who are described as the fiancé and daughter of the second Applicant respectively. 12 Norbeft Zongo supra note 4, § 49, Mohamed Abubakariv Tanzania (Reparations), § 59 , A/ex Thomas v Tanzania (Reparations), § 49 , Wilfred Onyango v. Tanzania, §70. 13 Norbeft Zongo supra note 4, §50 (i) - (iii). lngabire lJmuhoza v. Rwanda (Reparations), § 66, Mohamed Abubakari v Tanzanla (Reparations), § 59, A/ex Thomas v Tanzania (Reparations), § 49, Wilfred Onyango v. Tanzania, § 70. 1a Norbert Zongo sr/pra note 4, §50 (i) - (iii), Mohaned Abubakariv Tanzania (Reparations), § 60, A/ex Thomas v Tanzania (Reparations), § 50, Wilfred Onyango v. Tanzania, § 71, Lucren lkili v Tanzania (Merils and Reparâtions), § 135. 0tfiP?5 S4. Consequently, the Court finds that the Applicants' claims for moral damages for Mr. Yannick Nguza, Nasri Ally and Francis Nguza as indirect victims have not been established and therefore dismissed 55. With regard to the second Applicant's fiancé, Mariam Othman Bongi and daughter - Asha Johnson Nguza, the Court notes that he has not provided a copy of the daughter's birth certificate or any other document attesting that she is his daughter. There is also no documentary evidence showing filiation between l/ariam Othman Bongi and the second Applicant. 56. Therefore, the Court dismisses the second Applicant's claim for moral damages for Mariam Othman Bongi and Asha Johnson Nguza as indirect victims. 57. ln light of the foregoing, the Court dismisses the claims for moral prejudice in relation to the indirect victims. B. Non-pecuniary reparations Guarantees of non-repetition and report on implementation 58. The Applicants pray the Court to make an order that the Respondent State guarantees the non-repetition of violation of their rights. They also request that the Court should order the Respondent State to report on measures taken to implement the orders of the Court, every six (6) months, until it satisfies the orders the Court shall make in this regard. 59. The Respondent State contends that the Applicants have already been released and thus the prayer for guarantees of non-repetition is unfounded. 60. The Court observes that, as it has-held in the matter of Armand Guehi v. Tanzania, while guarantees of non-repetition generally apply in cases of systemic violations, these remedies would also be relevant in individual cases t5 t'f +ü2?4 where the violations will not cease, are likely to reoccur or are structural in nature. 15 61. The Court does not deem it necessary to issue an order regarding non- repetition of the violations of the Applicants' rights since there is no possibility of such violations being repeated in relation to them and since they have already been released. The claim is therefore dismissed. 62. Wth respect to the order for report on implementation of this judgment, the Court reiterates the obligation of the Respondent State as set out in Article 30 of the Protocol. The Court further notes that the Respondent State has not filed any reports of implementation in line with the Court's judgment on merits despite the time for the filing of the report having elapsed on 23 September 2018 and thus holds that the Respondent State shall file its reports on the implementation of this judgment within six (6) months of its notification of thereof. ii. Measures of satisfaction 63. The Applicants' request an order that the Respondent State publishes, in the national Gazette, the judgment of 23 tt/larch 2018 as a measure of satisfaction. 64. The Respondent State submits that the judgment will be published in the Court's website which is accessible to everyone and thus there is no need for it to publish the same in its national gazette as that would amount to duplication. 15 Armand Guehi v United Republic of Tanzania (Merits and Reparations) 2 AfCLR 477 § 191; and Reverend Christopher R. Mtikila supra note 4, § 43. Mohamed Abubakariv Tanzania (Reparations), § 71, Alex Thomas v Tanzania (Reparations), § 68. tùü2?lI 65. Though the Court considers that a judgment, per se, can constitute a sufficient form of reparation,16 it can order further measures of satisfaction as it deems fit. The circumstances warranting the Court to make such further orders in the instant case are; the prof le of the Applicants, the nature of their proceedings in the national courts, the media coverage of the Applicants' trials in the national courts and the need to emphasise on and raise awareness of the Respondent State's obligations to make reparations for the violations established with a view to enhancing implementation of the judgment. 66.1n order to ensure that the judgment is publicised as widely as possible, the Court therefore, finds that the publication of the judgment on merits and this judgment on reparations on the websites of the Judiciary and the Ministry of Constitutional and Legal Affairs of the Respondent State to remain accessible for at least one (1) year after the date of publication is an appropriate additional measure of satisfaction. VI. COSTS 67. ln its judgment on the merits, the Court held that it would decide on the issue of costs when dealing with reparations.lT 68. ln terms of Rule 30 of the Rules "unless othenirrise decided by the Court, each party shall bear its own costs." 69. The Court recalls that, in line with its earlier judgments, reparation may include payment of legal fees and other expenses incurred in the course of international 16 Armand Guehi v. Tanzania (Merits) supra note 1 1 , § 194; Reverend Christopher R. Mtikila supra nole 4, § 45. Mohamed Abubakari v Tanzania (Reparations), § 78, A/ex Thomas v Tanzania (Reparations), §74 17 Nguza Viking v Tanzania (Merils), § 146. flriül ??:r : v r- r< a ÿr proceedings.ls The Applicant must provide justification for the amounts claimed.le A. Legal fees related to proceedings before this Court 70. The Applicants in their initial submissions on reparations prayed the Court to grant them costs In respect of legal fees incurred during the proceedings before this Court as follows: 300 hours of legal work: 200 hours for two Assistant Counsels and 100 hours for the lead Counsel. This is charged at one hundred dollars (US$100) per hour for lead Counsel and fifty dollars (US$50) per hour for the Assistants. The total amount for all this being ten thousand (US$10,000) for the lead Counsel and ten thousand dollars (US$10,000) for the two Assistants. 71. ln their Reply, the Applicants withdrew this prayer "based on the Court's recent jurisprudence." 72.fhe Respondent State submits that the Applicants enjoyed free legal representation by the Pan African Lawyers' Union before this court and thus this prayer is unfounded and should be dismissed. 73. The Court notes that the Applicants withdrew this prayer and thus it will no longer pronounce itself on the same. 18 See Norbert Zongo v Burkina Faso supra note 6, §§ 79-93; and Reverend Christopher R. Mtikila v Tanzania supra note 4, § 39, Mohamed Abubakari v Tanzania (Reparations), § 8'1, A/ex Thomas v Tanzania (Reparations), § 77. 1s Norbeft Zongo v Burkina Faso supra note 6, § 81; and Reverend R. Mtikila v Tanzania supra note 4, § 40. Mohamed Abubakari v Tanzania (Reparations), § 81, A/ex Thomas v Tanzania (Reparations), § t8 B. Communication and stationery costs 00ü?71 74. Citing the precedent of the Zongo case, the Applicants in their initial submissions on reparations prayed the Court to grant the following reparations with regard to communication and stationery costs incurred: Postage amounting to United States Dollars Two hundred (US$ 200); Printing and Photocopying amounting to United States Dollars Two hundred (US$ 200); Communication costs amounting to United States Dollars one hundred (us$100). 75. ln their Reply, the Applicants withdrew this prayer "based on the Court's recent jurisprudence." 76. The Respondent State reiterates that the Applicants were represented by PALU under the Court's legal aid scheme and thus did not incur any costs. lt therefore prays that the prayer is dismissed. 77. The Court notes that the Applicants withdrew this prayer and thus it will no longer pronounce itself on the same. 78. Consequently, the Court decides that each Party shall bear its own costs VII. OPERATIVE PART 79. For these reasons THE COURT, Unanimously: l9 0('ü270 Pecuniary reparations i. Does not grant the Applicants' prayer for material damages for loss of income, life plan and legal fees at the national courts; t1, Does not grant the Applicants' prayer for damages for moral prejudice suffered by the indirect victims; Grants the Applicants' prayer for damages for the moral prejudice they suffered and awards the first Applicant the sum of Tanzanian Shillings Twenty Million (TZS 20,000,000) and the second Applicant the sum of Tanzanian Shillings Five Million (TZS 5,000,000); IV Orders the Respondent State to pay the amounts indicated under (ii) free from taxes, effective six (6) months from the date of notification of this Judgment, failing which it will pay interest on arrears calculated on the basis of the applicable rate of the Central Bank of the United Republic of Tanzania throughout the period of delayed payment until the amount is fully paid. Non -pecu ni ary reparation s Does not grantlhe Applicant's prayer for an order regarding non-repetition of the violations; VI Orders the Respondent State to publish, as a measure of satisfaction, this judgment on reparations and the judgment of 23 March 2018 on the merits of the case within three (3) months of notification of the present judgment on the official websites of the Judiciary and the Ministry of Constitutional and Legal Affairs and ensure that the judgments remain accessible for at least one (1) year after the date of such publication. On implementation and reporting vii. Orders the Respondent State to submit to it within six (6) months of the date of notification of this judgment, a report on measures taken to implement the orders set forth herein and thereafter, every six (6) months until the court considers that there has been full implementation thereof. 'l"l{'r.rP6S On cosfs viii. Decides fhat each Parÿ shall bear its own costs Signed: Sylvain ORÉ, President; _ _. Ben KIOKO, Vice-President, r1l -\ -'t--- i.. t/\.-,*- -/ I'--t \ \ Rafaâ BEN ACHOUR, Judge; Ângelo V. MATUSSE, Judge; . .,, Itt;' Suzanne MENGUE, Judge; i, +{ r 2_ M-Thérèse MUKAMULISA, Judge;''' -JS_.'.| ....-" 'æ='- Tujilane R. CHIZUMILA. Judge: \,)--"r -- (.(_,.r* ).. .^-.-, t'\ ,l ;4 \_,_ d - ) Chafika BENSAOULA, Judge; Blaise TCHIKAYA, Judge. Stella l. ANUKAM, Judge; and Robert ENO, Registrar è çt o l q @I ll à(xt5 Done at Arusha, this Eighth Day of the Month of May, in the year Two Thousand and Twenty, in English and French, the English text being authoritative. 2t