on hunting and gathering for their livelihood and sustainability, and therefore th ey cannot claim to have sustained any economic loss through lost opportunities . The Respondent reiterates that evicting the Ogieks from the Mau Forest was done in fulfilment of its national and international obligations, and therefore, the issue of compensation does not arise , otherwise, States will be plagued with compensation claims from their citizens in the fulfilment of their international obligations arising from international instruments they have acceded to or ratified . The Court's Assessment 222 . The Court's power on reparations is set out in Article 27(1) of the Protocol which states that: "if the Court finds that the re has been violation of a human and peoples ' rights, it shall make appropriate orders to remedy the violation including the payment of fair compensation or reparation". Further, pursuant to Rule 63 of the Rules, "The Court shall rule on the request for reparation submitted in accordance with Rules 34( 5) of these Rules, by the same decision establishing the violation of a human and peoples ' rights or, if the circumstance so require, by a separate decision". 223. The Court decides that it shall rule on any other forms of reparations in a separate decision, taking into consideration the additional submissions from the Parties. IX. 224. COSTS Neither the Applicant nor the Respondent made claims as to costs 225. The Court notes that Rule 30 of its Rules states that , " Unless otherwise decided by the Court, each party shall bear its own costs." 226. The Court shall rule on cost when making its ruling on other forms of reparation . I 67 4.7