“It notes in this connection that in assessing evidence, the Court has adopted the standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt” However, it has never been its purpose to borrow the approach of the national legal systems that use that standard. Its role is not to rule on criminal guilt or civil liability but on Contracting States’ responsibility under the Convention. The specificity of its task under Article 19 of the Convention to ensure the observance by the Contracting States of their engagement, to secure the fundamental rights enshrined in the Convention, conditions its approach to the issues of evidence and proof. In the proceedings before the Court, there are no procedural barriers to the admissibility of evidence or pre-determined formulae for its assessment. It adopts the conclusions that are, in its view, supported by the free evaluation of all evidence, including such inferences as may flow from the facts and the parties' submissions. According to its established case-law, proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact. Moreover, the level of persuasion necessary for reaching a particular conclusion and, in this connection, the distribution of the burden of proof are intrinsically linked to the specificity of the facts, the nature of the allegation made and the Convention right at stake.” This Court adopts this approach as appropriate. In the absence of any convincing evidence from the defense, this court is of the view that the alleged seizure of the Plaintiffs certificates for eight (8) years is unjustifiable, unwarranted, unnecessary, and disproportionate and has not been proved to pursue 32