In DJOT BAYI TALBIA V. FRN & 3 ORS, 2004-2009 Pg 265, para 40, the court was of the opinion that for the fact that the Defendants presented the Applicants before the press when no Judge or Court has found them guilty, certainly constitutes a violation of the principle of presumption of innocence such as provided in Article 7 (b). The later part of Article 7 (2) states: “punishment is personal and can be imposed only on the offender”. The implication of the above is that collective punishment for acts allegedly committed by one person is entrenched, this is indeed reprehensible and condemnable. Collective punishment is a form of sanction imposed on persons or a group of persons in response to a crime committed by one of them or a member of the group. As noted by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the concept of collective punishment does not refer to sanctions imposed pursuant to the application of penal law characterized by respect for due process, but rather to penalties of any kind inflicted on persons or entire groups of persons, in defiance of the most elementary principles of humanity, for acts that these persons have not personally committed. From the facts before this court, it is clear that the reason behind the demolition is the kidnapping menace in the Respondent’s state. It is also clear that the Applicants’ are victims of an unsubstantiated allegation not against them but against one member of their family. In investigating incidents of this nature, State authorities have an additional duty to take all reasonable steps not only to unmask any kidnap suspect, but to establish whether or not his relatives have played a role in the chain of events. The Defendant has failed to devote the requisite attention into such sensitive factors before embarking on demolition of the property. Punishment is personal and can be imposed only on the offender. It should not be extended to any other. Denying the uninvolved the right to have a roof over their heads means using them for the sole purpose of deterrence to others. It implies that such uninvolved persons were used as a means to serve an external purpose which in turn constitutes a violation of a collection of rights viz: rights to dignity, right to property, right to be heard and the right to be presumed innocent. 15