Republic of ranzania; (ii) allow him to return to and remain in the Respondent State like all its other citizens; (iii) order the Respondent State to protect him against victimization as a consequence of the present application; and (iv) order the Respondent State to amend its immigration legislation in order to guarantee a fair trial for persons likely to be deprived of their right to nationality. 123. During the oral pleadings, the Applicant reiterated his requests for reparation as well as "payment of compensation for prejudices suffered". 124. The Respondent State argues that the decision to annul his passport, declare him an illegal immigrant and expel him, was taken following investigations by the immigration authorities and implemented in accordance with the law. Therefore, for the Respondent state, the Application must be dismissed. 125. Article 27 (1) of the Protocol stiputates that "tf the Court finds that there has been a violation of a human or peoples' right, it shall make appropriate orders to remedy the violation, including the payment of fair compensation or reparation". 126' Rule 63 of the Rules stipulates that: "The Court shall rule on the request for the reparation, submitted in accordance with Rule 3a (S) of these Rules, by the same decision establishing the violation of a human and peoples' right or, if the circumstances so require, by a separate decision". 127. The Court holds that it does not have the power to rule on the requests made by the Applicant in paragraph 122 to annul the decision of the Respondent State to expel him. 128. The Court notes that the Parties did not make submissions on other forms of reparation. lt will therefore determine this issue at a later stage of the proceedings. v // 27 4s_ @-- {,1