exiting of the premises. Others who arrived later were equally locked out. They further alleged that in so doing the security personnel prevented the Applicants from carrying out the objective of their gathering to protest the issues of concern earlier stated. This fact is supported by Exhibits B, C, D, E, F, & G. 65.The Court ahead of determining the alleged violation must be convinced of the veracity of the facts alleged as same must be proved. ECW/CCJ/JUD/02/18 FESTUS A.O. OGWUCHE V.FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA PAGE 33 and ECW/CCJ/JUD/01/20 OUSAINOE DARBOE & 31 ORS v. THE REPUBLIC OF GAMBIA, PAGE 23. 66.As earlier stated, even though the Respondent failed to file a defense despite being informed of the case, nevertheless, all facts deposed to by the Applicant must be proved to the satisfaction of the Court. It is therefore imperative for the Current Applicants to prove that they indeed gathered at the venue cited and that the named security agents prevented them from fulfilling their objective of a peaceful protest. 67.One of the methods of establishing the occurrence of events such as in the instant case is either by oral testimony of the parties, verified video recording or media reportage which aligns with the pleadings of the Applicants. In this wise the Applicants submitted Exhibits B, C & D (photographs at the scene of the event) and Exhibits E, F, & G (Media Reports of Daily Trust, Sun news online and Vanguard News) 68.Regarding the photographs attached to the Application, the Court considers that having had no prior physical identification of the Applicants to allow a comparison with individuals in the photographs, it is unable to give any 22