The Court holds that the said anti-kidnapping law passed by a component state of the Respondent falls short of the international standards. The Court therefore holds that the said law is to the extent of its inconsistency null and void, same violating the international principles ratified by the Respondent. Having said this, we now turn to the issue of proof of allegation by the Applicants. The general principle of evidence is that he who alleges must prove. In civil cases, this burden is not beyond reasonable doubt but on preponderance of evidence. It thus shifts with time and rests on the party that will lose if no further evidence is led. The initial burden of proof thus rests on the Applicant who is to establish through evidence, all the requisite elements to succeed in his case. If that burden is met, the burden of proof then shifts to the Respondent who now has to lead evidence in rebuttal of the Applicants’ assertions by preponderance of evidence. In substantiating their claims, the Applicants’ annexed as evidence pictures and videos showing the property prior to demolishment and the bare land after demolishment. They attached annexures which reveal that indeed there was a joint tax force being a coalition of the Army, police, civil defence etc. for purposes of eradicating the kidnapping menace. They also annexed newspaper publications on the mandate given to this set as well as information on brand new patrol Hilux cars given to them in furtherance of their operations. Having provided these pieces of evidence in substantiation of their allegation, the Applicants’ have thus discharged the burden on them. Consequently, it is incumbent on the Respondent to provide the relevant proof to rebut the facts. In GUTIERREZ SOLER V. COLOMBIA, Inter-Am. CT.HR (Ser.c) No. 132, (Sept 12 2005), the commission and court found that there was not enough evidence but decided that the absence of such evidence was directly the responsibility of the state. In BENJAMIN N. IROAGBARA V. DAVID UFOMADU (2009) 5-6 SC (PT 1) 83. The court stated that the burden of proof rests on the party (whether plaintiff or defendant) who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue. When it is said that the onus of proof shifts from the plaintiff to the defendant and vice versa from time to time as the case progresses, it means no more than the burden of proof may shift depending on how the scale of evidence preponderates. Richards LJ in R (N) v Mental Health Review Tribunal (Northern Region) [2006] QB 468, at [62] states that: 17