which was the family's only source of income; that to make ends meet, she was forced to sell pastries on a daily basis. 55. Regarding his children, the Applicant states that they were equally affected by his conviction and imprisonment; that his eldest son who was undergoing training at military academy in Taiwan at the time of the trial was informed of the sad news of his father's conviction through the internet because the latter did not have the courage to convey the information to his son; that since he received the news, he started having severe bouts of headache; that his two younger sons, for their part, were being ridiculed by their school mates after the conviction was broadcast by the media; that his youngest son who was only fourteen at the time of the imprisonment, was so affected that he was ultimately dismissed from school for poor academic performance. 56. Relying on the jurisprudence of international courts and considering all the circumstances of the matter, the attack on his professional reputation, the impact on his career (the physical and psychological torture inflicted on his entire family as a result of the case, then his imprisonment and what the Respondent State intended to achieve by subjecting a journalist to such punishment) - the Applicant prays the Court to award reparation proportionate to the moral prejudice suffered in the amount of 17,500,000 CFA Francs. 57. The Respondent State did not dispute the fact that the Applicant suffered moral prejudice during the criminal trial that resulted in his conviction and imprisonment. It however maintains that the magnitude of the damages and the amount of compensation the Applicant is claiming are disproportionate when compared to the prejudice suffered, considering the context and living standards in Burkina Faso. Consequently, it prays the Court to assess the damages based on reality and context, and award the Applicant the sum of 500,000 CFA Francs as compensation. 14