59. In the absence of the Bill and the Hansard, the Court is handicapped in deciding the existence of any “reasonable and convincing indices for the probability of the realization of human rights violations”. Therefore, the hypothesis of a future or imminent violation cannot be ascertained and retained in this case. 60. Consequently, this Court holds that the Applicant have failed to discharge the burden of proving the existence of any imminent threat emanating from the processes of enacting the impugned Bill into law and all their claims fail. X. REPARATIONS 61. It is trite law that it is only when liability is established, that any resultant harm attracts reparation to repair them. 62. In the instant case, the Court having found no violations the Respondent is not liable to make any reparations as prayed for by the Applicants. XI. COSTS 63. The Applicants prayed for costs of the suit against the Respondent but the Respondent did not pray for costs of the proceedings. 64. Article 66 (1) of the Rules of Court provides, “A decision as to costs shall be given in the final judgment or in the order, which closes the proceedings.” In addition, Article 66(2) of the Rules of Court provide, “The unsuccessful party shall be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.” 65. In light of the provisions of the Rules, the Court holds that since the Respondent, being a successful party did not pray for costs, the Court orders each party to bear their respective costs. 21