testimony. In addition, evidence that all the Applicants received some compensation is fundamental and vital to a decision of the court and this has not been provided. 137. The Court recalls that before the closure of this case for judgment, the Respondent was availed 2 adjournments over a period of 10 months to provide the relevant proof of the payments alleged to have been made to the Applicants. The Respondent failed and or neglected to provide any such proof. The court, based on the above, finds that that the Respondent has not established via any evidence that it paid any compensation to the within named Applicants. 138. Having stated earlier that violation of rights attracts reparation, the Court must now proceed to examine the claim for damages of the Applicants for reparation to determine whether they are entitled to the quantum of compensations claimed. The Applicants’ claims can be categorized into three segments 1) Item (A)above represents the claim for the lives lost 2) Item (B) above represent the claim for the injured 3) Items (C-I ) above represent a claim for a mixture of different physical properties 139. Compensation for Loss of lives. While the Court notes that insofar as the right to life is concerned, it is impossible effect restoration in integrum that is to restore life, in such cases, compensation may be awarded in its stead to their heirs by succession. Therefore in assessing the damages for loss of lives, the following excerpts from exhibit 26 @ page 18 is instructive. “The Panel recommends that relevant professional assessors should be appointed to assess the actual pecuniary value to be attached to lives lost and injuries sustained for the purpose of compensation”. In response to above, the Respondent made the following commitment. “Government notes this recommendation and will work out the level of assistance to be given to the victims ………..” There is no evidence before this court that this recommendation has been complied with. If the Respondent has paid any compensation to the Applicant, same has not been proved before this Court. The court is a court of justice and not of speculations, its decision must be based on facts laid before it. 39