not contain sufficient material evidence which may lend credence to the accusations made against the Nigerian Police Force. Throughout the entire proceedings on the matter brought before the Court, the Court observes that there are only two testimonies, one made by the an officer of People's Rights Organization, which, in reality, is a letter addressed to the Attorney General and Minister of Justice (Letter dated 13 December 2010), and another from Mr. Victor Okakah, implicated in a car accident after which certain presumed victims may have had a dispute with law enforcement agencies and judicial officers. But, no proofs of evidence directly related to what fate may have befallen the persons pleaded in the case as victims of "murder" or "enforced disappearance" seem to emerge from the said testimony; the deposition referred to particularly concern the accident in question. In the view of the Court, the outcome of an analysis of that situation is that, the items of evidence which may enable the Court to order an extensive investigation into the matter are lacking. The Court would however want to state a point at this stage, that it is conscious of how difficult it may be for a litigant to bring evidence on "murder" or on "enforced disappearance." In principle, the total absence of information or an intelligence report on the victims, makes it difficult to establish the facts alleged. It is all the more so when the offence is committed by State Security Agencies, i.e. indirectly by the State. In terms of having to tender evidence therefore, one cannot make demands requiring the same degree of evidence as applicable to other cases. The Court even admits herein that it would be satisfied with indicia, that is to say, ordinary items of evidence which constitute pointers or leads to concrete evidence. In the instant case, the Court is of the view that the rule governing the burden of proof must be relaxed, a burden which lies, in principle, on the Plaintiff. Considering however, that the Plaintiffs find themselves in a near-impossible situation of being able to produce any evidence whatsoever, the Court holds that it is only the Defendant State which is in a position to furnish the materials of evidence needed by the Court; that is the time-held practice before the international courts any time there is an issue regarding "enforced disappearance". It is up to the State, vested with the public authority from which the Police Force derives its powers, to account for all that concerns the safety and physical integrity of the persons in question. That duty becomes all the more binding, as in the instant case, when the persons considered to have "disappeared" had been held on the premises of the Police Force. 12