cited in the Judgment ECW/CCJ/RUL/07/2010 pronounced in SERAP versus President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria & others. (CCJLR 2010 to page 252, para.72) -. In this case, it remains to be ascertained whether are fulfilled the assumptions, which determine the international responsibility of the Defendant State, namely the unlawful act (the violation of the applicant's human rights guaranteed by the conventions) - the imputability of the unlawful act to agents of the State that violates the international law, binding the State, the causal link between the unlawful act and the damages suffered by the applicant. First, it must be observed that the general principle of proof imposes the burden of proof on the party making the claims. It is true that this rule is reversed when there is a legal presumption, exemption or release of the burden of proof, situations in which such burden happens to fall on the opposite party. Thus, in an instance where the party to whom the burden of proof is to be imposed complies with it, such party shall enjoy the benefit of the presumption and, as such, it will be for the counterpart to counteract the evidence produced. In the present case, there is no doubt that the burden of proof lies with the applicant, and it is for him to prove the facts which he has claimed as constituting the right which he is pleading for. It is proved that, on the 18th of March 2016, in breach of the aforementioned Conventions, the agents of the defendant closed their borders with The Gambia and refused to allow the entry of the applicant’s three trucks carrying fish to Nigeria,preventing him from crossing the border between The Gambia and Senegal, without any justifiable excuse for the violation of his right to free movement of persons, goods and services, guaranteed by the aforementioned conventions, making such action to be internationally illicit - therefore the first two presuppositions above mentioned are thus fulfilled - the unlawful act attributable to the defendant´s agents) On the claimed damages: The applicant claimed to have suffered pecuniary and moral damages, the compensation of which he petitioned. 22