The Court finds that the Applicants have had to bear an individual and excessive burden which had upset the fair balance that should be struck between the requirements of the general interest and the protection of the right to peaceful enjoyment of one’s possessions. Having regard to the foregoing, the Court reiterates that the Applicants were definitively deprived of their home and all the possessions used to run their daily family life. The interference in question was thus manifestly in breach of both the international and domestic legislations to which the Respondent is bound. The Court holds that the demolition was a disproportionate interference with the Applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions which was not attended to by the requisite procedural safeguards namely the requirement to establish proper justification for the serious interference with their rights and consequently cannot be regarded as justified by a “pressing social need” or proportionate to the legitimate aim being pursued. Although only the 1st Applicant has a legal rights to the house, other Applicants had lived in the property for a number of years. It was therefore “home” for all of them. The order for demolition amounted to interference with their right to respect for their home. In Conclusion, the Court holds that the act of the Respondents agents was arbitrary, unwarranted, unconscionable and baseless and amounts to a gross violation of the Applicants rights. HAVING FOUND A VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFFS RIGHT BY AGENTS OF DEFENDANT, WHETHER OR NOT DEFENDANT IS LIABLE FOR THE VIOLATION. The Applicants allege that the Respondent failed to carry out effective investigation into the matter before carrying out the demolition. The task of assuring legality is to define and create a set of measures or procedures which provides a reasoned and acceptable likelihood that justice will be done through an independent inquiry for purposes of acquisition of facts and subsequent application of relevant laws to the facts so obtained. This is the very essence of effective investigation. An effective complaint and response system is critical to the determination of the effectiveness of the state and its agents in carrying out its responsibility to bring perpetrators to book. Furthermore, the requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition is paramount. 23