For the Court to determine whether or not a violation of the Charter has occurred, it must have access to credible evidence and information on the alleged violation .The burden of presenting this evidence is on the Plaintiff as he stands to fail if no such evidence is adduced. In Petrostar (Nigeria) Limited V. Blackberry Nigeria Limited & 1 or (2011) CCJELR, the Court in its consideration reiterated the cardinal principle of law that “he who alleges must prove”. Therefore, where a party asserts a fact, he must produce evidence to substantiate the claim. It is not sufficient simply to challenge a law or State policy or practice in the abstract (actio popularis) without demonstrating how the alleged victim is individually affected. The complaint must be sufficiently substantiated. See Aumeeruddy-Cziffra and Others v. Mauritius (Communication No. R.9/35) 9 April 1981 decided in the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights. Environmental issues such as the ones alleged in this case can impact on individuals and communities enjoyment of fundamental rights including the right to health, the right to adequate standard of living, the right to self-determination, and the right to life itself. These are rights which are guaranteed under international human rights instruments in relation to which the state bears certain responsibilities. However, these responsibilities cannot be borne by the state unless the party alleging the violation discharges his burden of proof. 26