members of the court or present arguments that would cause the court to be persuaded to decide on either for the plaintiff or defendant. though in National courts the statement Even above is coined as burden of proof which may include the burden of proof, burden of persuasion the consideration of the same produce the same result. The burden of proof under the English law and in French law, the phrase 'la charge de la preuve' connotes obligation to prove. In the book 'evidence before the International Court of Justice by Anna Riddell and Brendan Plant it was stated on the burden of proof thus: ( the principal former difference is that the divides the burden of proof into two issues, one procedural and one substantive, substantive. 49. between the tuio legal traditions whereas the civil law is concerned only uiitl: the s However in trying to analyze the evidence presented by the parties in this case it must be clearly stated that the concept of burden of proof and burden of evidence though may be interwoven are more recognized in domestic law and would not be quite appropriate international for application in an law court setting like this Court. In ELS1 case at page 86 of the said Riddell and Plant's observations, the emphasis was to the effect that, "Applicant's case ...must be objectively and realistically seen as crossing a bright line of proof Its case must be made by evidence ..And (Z preponderance the hard conclusion then is that unless Applicant carry the twin burdens of proof and persuasion; of the can can win eueru single point to its cn:;e; and con cstablist: (lie ncccssari; causal lit.k. between each one: the applicants couse of action does not hold water." In B Cheng =General principles of Law as applied by International Courts and Tribunals OUP London 1953 P.329, he said, " It means that a party haoinq the burden to proof must not only bring evidence in 18