It should be pointed out that the defendant did not specify the specific requirements laid down in the cited Articles 4 and 5 that the applicant failed to fulfill, but rather merely claimed, as a rule of thumb, that the applicant did not comply with such Articles. And furthermore, the following question arises: In the event of a breach of the requirements laid down in that Convention by the applicant, was it for the defendant to prevent the applicant from entering its territory by closing its border with The Gambia? The answer is negative, since, as aforementioned, the Article 29 states that in the event of non-compliance, the duties, taxes and fines which may be incurred shall be collected by the Member State in accordance with the laws and regulations, in force in each State. The defendant did not claim that the applicant did not comply with a duty or refused to pay any tax or fine that was determined to him by the defendant because of the alleged breach of the Convention. The defendant was categorical in stating that the applicant did not meet the requirements under the framework for interstate transit of goods as provided in Articles 4 and 5 et seq. of the Convention A/P4/5/82. It was incumbent on the defendant to specify which requirements under the framework of interstate transit of goods, as provided fin Articles 4 and 5 et seq. of the Convention A/P4/5/82, that the applicant did not comply with, in order to be able to prove them. Therefore, there are no doubt that based on the ground that those facts were hampering to the right claimed by the applicant, the defendant would have to plead and prove, because the burden of proof lays on him. By the way, the Court wrote in teh Judgment ECW/CCJ/JUD/01/10 (in CCJLR 2010, p. 12 par.35) in the case of Daouda Garba versus Republic of Benin: ”it is of general rule in law that in the course of a trial the party making the allegations must prove it. The constitution and demonstration of the evidence therefore belongs to the concerned parties. They must use all the legal means and provide evidence to support their claims. Such evidence must be convincing to establish a connection between them and the claimed facts… ” 16