77. It follows that a legal person who alleges the violation of its freedom of expression must prove that the subject-matter for which an expression of opinion is allegedly denied is within its mandate and necessary for the full realization of the aims and objective of its existence. 78. In the instant case, the Applicants who are NGOs operating within the jurisdiction of the Respondent, allege that the ban on political demonstrations by Order N° 7580 / MINSTSP of 20 July 2011 adopted by the Respondent violated their right to freedom of expression. To succeed in this claim, it behooves on the Applicants to specify the aims and objectives for which they were registered and show how the said ban prevented the dissemination and or receipt of information or opinion in regards to their legitimate activities. 79. The Records before the Court do not disclose the objectives for which the Applicants were registered and the Court is unable to conjecture same. The Court has held that “It is a general rule in law that during trial, the party that makes allegations must provide evidence. The onus of constituting and demonstrating evidence is therefore upon the litigating parties. They must use all the legal mean available and furnish the points of evidence which go to support their claims. The evidence must be convincing in order to establish a link with the alleged facts.” GARBA DAOUDA VS REPUBLIC OF BENIN, PARAGRAPH 35. 80. As earlier stated the Order N° 7580 / MINSTSP of 20 July 2011 is a ban on demonstration of political nature with religious, cultural, sporting and social demonstration excepted. Since the object of the ban is of a political nature, the Applicants are obliged to prove that their mandate entails 25