from drowning. In this direction, the Defendant is under a duty in international law to make full reparation for the unlawful death of the Applicant’s son. The Court holds that the case of violation of right for life of the Applicant’s son, has been made out against by the Defendant. iii. What Orders the Court can make in the Circumstances: This question raised here appears to have been answered in the preceding sections. Where there is a right in law, there must be remedy. Having found this claim admissible and proved on a preponderance of evidence, the Applicant is entitled to the orders sought. From the totality of evidence available, the following are established; i. The Defendant violated the right to life of the deceased by its official making the deceased undertake the watermanship training without providing him with the equipment necessary to save him from drowning and arbitrarily pushing him into deep water when they knew he could not swim. ii. The Defendant following the death of the Applicant’s son failed to investigate, prosecute and where necessary punish the officials responsible for this tragic and unlawful incident. iii. The Defendant failed or neglected to take necessary steps to compensate the family of the deceased till date. 27