"Although there is a single civil standard of proof on the balance of probabilities, it is flexible in its application. In particular, the more serious the allegation or the more serious the consequences if the allegation is proved, the stronger must be the evidence before a court will find the allegation proved on the balance of probabilities. Thus the flexibility of the standard lies not in any adjustment to the degree of probability required for an allegation to be proved (such that a more serious allegation has to be proved to a higher degree of probability), but in the strength or quality of the evidence that will in practice be required for an allegation to be proved on the balance of probabilities." In the case of BOUYID V.BELGIUM [GC] (23380/09, 28 September 2015, Information Note 188),the Court reiterated that the authorities bore the burden of proof in respect of events occurring while an individual was under the control of the police or of a similar authority. The Respondent has failed to adduce evidence in rebuttal. The Respondent only succeeded in stating that there was indeed an articulated security formation which culminated into the operation rescue Imo, a coalition of the police, soldiers, the state security service, SSS and Civil Defense Corps with the aim of curbing the kidnapping menace and threats to indigenes and visitors. They also asserted that the Anti-Kidnapping law was passed to take care of every infringement against the law on kidnapping and that 100 new Hilux Patrol vehicles and other security gadgets were distributed by the government to security operatives and communities for that purpose. There is no evidence before this Court to show that the Applicants’ house was used to keep kidnap victims hostage. Even if there was, the presumption of innocence has not been given due consideration. Assuming without conceding that the 1st Applicant’s son Obinna onwuham was a kidnapper, the question is, was he tried by any competent court? Was he convicted as required by the anti-kidnapping bill? Was it established that the father i.e. 1st Applicant is an accomplice to the fact to warrant demolishing his house? It is not enough for the Respondent to merely state that they were not at the Applicants property on the dates mentioned or any other day. It may be curious to note that the Respondent did not carry out any investigation to unravel the persons involved in the demolition. This is indicative of the Respondent’s acquiescence of the demolition. Having put the Applicants to the strictest proof of their averments we are satisfied by the evidence placed before us by the Applicants in proof thereof. We therefore hold the Respondent’s responsible and liable for the demolition of the Applicants’ houses. 18