the Plaintiffs refusal to the Defendants routine check at the border which he has been plying over the years. It is assumed that someone who has passed through the same route for the past eight years is conversant with the border formalities. The general denial by the Defendant on the alleged demand for gratification without more, is not sufficient to disprove the Plaintiff’s claim. Consequently, this Court infers that, the circumstances leading to the temporal seizure of the Plaintiff’s passport which the Defendant did not give a reasonable justification to, is as a result of the Plaintiff’s refusal to pay the gratification sum to the Defendant’s Officers. 1a. WHETHER THE DEFENDANT HAS CARRIED OUT EFFECTIVE INVESTIGATION ON THE ALLEDGED VIOLATION OF THE PLAINTIFF’S RIGHTS The Plaintiff contends that the violation of his rights by the officer of the Defendant is a breach of duty and state covenant by the Defendant as enshrined in Article 1 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples rights and Article 3(d) of the Supplementary Protocol. The rules of state responsibility applies to international human rights law. Article 122 of the UN Draft Article on Responsibility of States for Internationally wrongful acts, adopted by the ILC at its 53rd session and submitted to the UN General Assembly provides: 20