Kennedy Gihana v Republic of Rwanda The Court therefore found that the revocation of the applicants’ passports did not amount to deprivation of their nationality. 43 Because the applicants remained registered as nationals of Rwanda, they had to be considered Rwandan nationals despite the cancellation of their travel documents. 44 This is important; it brings into light the relevance of identity documents and registration in a particular country. The Court noted: an individual's identity and sense of belonging is intrinsically tied to the social, physical and political connections that they have with their country of origin. The Court further notes that the arbitrary revocation of the Applicants’ passports resulted in the violations found against the Applicants. Since 14 May 2012, when the said passports were arbitrarily revoked, the Applicants had been unable to leave their country of residence and to travel back to their country of origin and to other countries. This adversely affected the aforementioned connections that the Applicants had with their country of origin. The Court finds that this caused them emotional anguish and despair, occasioning them moral prejudice, therefore this entitles them to reparation. 45 The Court awarded an amount of Rwandan Francs to each of the applicants as fair compensation for the moral prejudice caused. 46 The Court further ordered the reinstatement of the passports within three months of the order as an appropriate measure for the respondent state to take as restitution to the applicants. 47 CONCLUSION The Kennedy case deals with the arbitrary revocation of documents linked to one’s nationality. The court affirmed its position on how the arbitrary revocation of passports effects freedom of movemen using art 12 of the African Charter and the ICCPR. 48 It also consolidated views previously developed in its own decisions on the burden of proof in cases such as Anudo and Pennesis. 49 In particular, the Court reinforced the notion that the state must bear the burden of proof in matters regarding whether or not documentation has been arbitrarily revoked, as the state has more resources. 50 This notion was only made more clear by the fact that the revocation of the applicants’ passports meant that they were unable to travel to prove their citizenship. This case confirms the importance of civil registration in proving one’s nationality. Had the applicants not been registered, the ruling might very well have had a different outcome. This case is vital because it highlights that, although documents linked to one’s nationality can be withdrawn, it does not necessarily result in being considered stateless. 51 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 ibid 23 [98]. ibid 24 [102]. ibid 31 [143]. ibid 32 [144]. ibid 33–34 [153](ix). ibid 25 [108]. ibid 20–21 [84]–[85]. ibid. ibid 24 [102]. 337