58. The Court notes that the Respondent State does not contest the fact that the Applicant suffered moral prejudice. It further observes that such prejudice is often assumed by international courts in cases of human right violations4 . 59. The Court nevertheless holds that the claim is exaggerated and on the basis of equity, decides to reduce the amount to 10,000,000 CFA. 60. On these grounds, THE COURT, (i) Unanimously, Orders the Respondent State to expunge from the Applicant's judicial records , all the criminal convictions pronounced against him ; (ii) Unanimously, Orders the Respondent State to revise downwards the amount of fines, damages and costs charged against the Appl icant to ensure that it is compliant with the criteria of necessity and proportionality as stated in the Court's judgment on the merits regarding other sanctions; (iii) Unanimously, 4 Beneficiaries of Norbert Zongo, Abdoulaye Nikiema alias Ablasse, Ernest Zongo and Blaise //baudo & Burkinabe Human Rights Movement v. Burkina Faso (Reparation), para.61 . See also Inter American Court on Human Rights, Mapiripan massacre v. Colombia, series C, No. 134 (2005), para. 146, Lori Berenson-Meija v. Peru, series C, No. 119 (2004), para 237. European Court of Human Rights: Lepojic ~