6.3.4. Treatment is considered to be “degrading” within the meaning of Article 3 of European convention which is pari materia to the provisions of Article 5 of the ACHPR, when it humiliates or debases an individual, showing a lack of respect for, or diminishing, his or her human dignity, or when it arouses feelings of fear, anguish or inferiority capable of breaking an individual’s moral and physical resistance (see M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], no. 30696 para ECHR 2011. 6.3.5. In order for treatment to be “degrading”, the suffering or humiliation involved must in any event go beyond that inevitable element of suffering or humiliation connected with a given form of legitimate treatment. 6.3.6. It is trite that he who alleges must prove. The burden of proof in civil cases rests on the party that will lose if no evidence is led. Proof of facts alleged is either by production of documents, oral testimony or production of material for examination by the Court. 6.3.7. The Court has stressed that merely stating allegations without more does not discharge the burden placed on the Applicants to prove their case. 6.3.8. In PETROSTAR (NIGERIA) LIMITED V. BLACKBERRY NIGERIA LIMITED & 1 OR CCJELR (2011), the court in its consideration reiterated the cardinal principle of law that “he who alleges must prove”. Therefore, where a party asserts a fact, he must produce evidence to substantiate the claim. 6.3.9. Article 32 (4) of the Rules of this Court enjoins litigants to attach to their pleadings documents and evidence relied on in proof of their case. 6.3.10. The 2nd Applicant failed to annex any document evidencing the stringent and humiliating treatment meted out on him. Being an allegation on health, it is only but right to secure an expert evidence to prove that the alleged disability was as a result of the dehumanizing prison conditions. There is also no evidence before this Court that the said disability did not predate the incarceration. 6.3.11. The burden of proof will only shift to the Respondents when the Applicants have discharged onus placed on him. In E.D TSOKWA AND SONS COMPANY LIMITED V. UNION BANK OF NIGERIA Page | 14