00048 6 retained in the operative part of judgement. ln my opinion, this aspect - availability of justice - does not form part of the shortcomings actually attributable to the State. While remaining in solidarity with the majority of my colleagues, it should be noted that the question at issue is the applicant's inconsistency and lack of rigour in the use of the means of action at his disposal. To refuse a litigant all means of action may mean denying him the action in question, but in this case it seems possible to say that this was not the case. The first point of the operative part should be specific. 13 The Court had to examine the wrongful conduct of the domestic courts. The applicant in this case pointed to the impartiality of the judges in establishing the breaches enshrined in the Charter. ln the case of Thobias Mango and others v. Tanzania, decision of 1 1 May 2018, the aim of which was to highllight the lack of judicial fairness. As in the present case, the African Court found that the applicant had failed to prove that the judges of the national courts were biased and thus generated a violation of the right to be tried by an impartial tribunall3. ln the present case, the court, while citing its jurisprudence- Abubakarila - noted that the domestic courts had determined that there was evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the applicants had committed the crime of which they were accused. The relevance to the case at hand lies in the fact that the MGosi decision sets aside the necessary and thorough verification of the applicant's claims and allegations concerning his initiative to lodge an appeal. Reasonable doubt persists 14 A special feature is worth noting. lt is tied to the specificity of the litigation of the Court. This is also present in the MGosi case. While the burden of proof did not always rest with the applicants in human rights cases, it was desirable for the court to make reasonable use of the principle. lt is right that the person who alleges a wrongful practice or initiative that causes damage should adduce proof thereof. The adage is universally known: "actori incumbit probatio, reus in excipiendo fit actof'(the one who asserts a right must prove it). The materialelements of human rights abuses leading to a suit in court, are often extremely damaging, and come after lengthy internal proceedings. The emergence of evidence at international level is necessary as much as it is complex. The African Human Rights judge, as in Mgosi case, must face up to this fact. 15. While sharing the position of my colleagues on the decision on the merits, I nevertheless express this individual opinion to highlight the insufficiency of unsubstantiated or unproven claims before the Court Tunis, on 07l12l2O1B ACHPR, Thobias Mang 'ara Mango and Shukurani Masegenya Mango v tlnited Republic of Tanzania, t t/s/2018, s t04. 13 14 ACHPR,, Mohamed Abubakariv United Republic of Tanzania, 3/6/ 2016 " 1.,',1] r;.\i 5 d,:- ni il ii ! 'ii: