The Defendant did not lead any evidence to controvert or disprove these testimonies neither did it produce document to rebut the 4th Plaintiff’s allegation of detention at the Gwarimpa police station despite its contention that the records did not disclose such detention. The Defendant failed or neglected to attach the register of the Gwarimpa police station on the day in question to establish its submission. For the avoidance of doubt in cases in which an Applicant alleges arrest and detention, it is usually difficult for them to have access to the detailed record of the arrest, a fact usually within the knowledge and possession of the arresting officials. How does he prove the facts of arrest other than through an assertion of that fact. Mere denial of lack of arrest on the part of a Defendant cannot suffice. The Court usually presumes the fact of arrest and its unlawfulness and the Defendant have to rebut it by producing credible evidence of absence of arrest and detention of the Applicant. A general denial by the Defendant as in this case is not sufficient. In the light of the above the plaintiffs have established the facts of their allegation of harassment of 1st Plaintiff and arrest of 4th Plaintiff on the preponderance of evidence adduced. In FERNANDEZ ORTEGA ET.AL V. MEXICO. INTER.AM CT.HR (SER C) No.215 (Aug 2010), the Court noted that the State had the burden to provide conclusive information to disprove the alleged facts and having provided no evidence in contradiction of the plaintiff’s claim has failed to discharge that burden and so found the state responsible. 32