5. Besides, in international judicial practice, it is generally acknowledged that, when circumstances which are not attributable to a party are such that evidence required from it is difficult or impossible to obtain, the Judge may be inclined to be convinced more easily than in normal circumstances. ' 6. In the instant case, however, the issue is that the Applicants content themselves with making a general allegation, without substantiating it with precise facts which could concretely reflect this fear and anxiety and thus establish prima facie, the merits of the said allegation. While the Respondent State argued that the treatment of the Zongo case at the national level had no negative impact whatsoever on the freedom of expression of journalists (paragraph 177), the Applicants, on their part, did not submit the slightest evidence to move the Court to make a determination on the existence of such an “intimidating effect” which could affect the rights guaranteed under the above-mentioned provisions. They gave no indication on the fact that, since the beginning of the Zongo case, the media in Burkina Faso would no longer have been able to express itself freely. In the absence of precise facts or a minimum of evidence, and considering that the Respondent State challenged the allegation, the Court being a judicial body, ought not to have concluded in favour of such a violation. 7. It is for this reason that we could not subscribe to the decision of the majority of the Court in paragraph 5 of the operative part of this judgment, as quoted above. Gérard Niyungeko Judge - Fatsah Ouguergouz Judge — El Hadji Guisse Judge hye Kimelabalou Aba Judge al Robert Eno, Registrar * On this practice, see Gérard NIYUNGEKO, «La preuve devant les juridictions internationales», Bruylant, Editions de l'Université de Bruxelles, 2005, pp. 418- 424. 2