ECW/CCJ/RUL/ 03/14, where this Court stated the law as follows; a) In cases of violation of human rights, only the victims may have access to the Court; b) Aside from cases of collective interests, NGO’s cannot substitute the victims c) Non –victims of violations must receive prior authorization to act on behalf of victims or their closest relatives. The issue of legal capacity is germane in all proceedings. It is trite law that proof in civil cases including, human rights, the standard of proof is on preponderance of evidence and the burden is uasually on the person who will fail where no evidence is led. In their counter affidavit to the Defendant’s preliminary objections, the 1st Applicant annexed its certificate of incorporation (Annexure 1) and the process of its registration. The certificate of incorporation is a prima facie evidence of the personality of the 1st Applicant who is registered as a nongovernmental Organization (NGO). Having produced their certificate of incorporation, it is for the Defendants to dispute the authenticity or otherwise of that certificate. Not having done so, this Court will presume the regularity of that certificate as evidence of the legal personality of the 1st Plaintiff and we so hold. Aligned to the above is the question of locus standi. The jurisprudence of this Court as stated in SERAP case (SUPRA) and other cases is to the effect that it is only the direct victims of human rights violation that have the standing to move this Court. However, exceptions to this rule exist. These include but not limited to cases of collective interest (usually referred to as public interest litigations) and the nonvictims receiving authority to act on behalf of the victims or their close relations. It is noteworthy that public interest litigations refer to cases in which Courts allow volunteers like Lawyers, Citizen Petitioners, NGO’s to bring actions on behalf of some victimized groups who ordinarily are without sufficient means of access to legal services or justice. 15