130. The Court notes that the allegations being examined relate to deprivation of food, conditions of detention, and restriction of access to friends and relatives. 131. The Court further notes that the prohibition of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment under Article 5 of the Charter is absolute. 39 Furthermore, such treatment can take various forms and a determination whether the right was breached will depend on the circumstances of each cause 40 132. In light of the submissions made by the Applicant and the Respondent State, the Court considers that the determination of the Applicant's allegation bears on evidence. In this regard, the Court is of the view that the ordinary eVidentiary rule that who alleges must prove may not apply rigidly in human rights adjudication. The Court restates its position in the earlier cited case of Kennedy Owino Onyachi and Charles John Mwanini Njoka v. Tanzania that in circumstances where the Applicants are in custody and unable to prove their allegations because the means to verify the same are likely to be in the control of the State, the burden of proof will shift to the Respondent State as long as the Applicants make a prima facie case of violation. 41 133. The Court notes that, in the instant case, the Applicant adduced prima facie evidence that he was given food two (2) times only in the course of ten (10) days, including once by his house maid. While it does not challenge this assertion, the Respondent State avers that the Applicant's statement shows that he was not prevented from receiving food. 134. In the Court's view, the Respondent State bore the duty to provide the Applicant with food so long as he was in its custody. Once the Applicant adduces prima facie evidence that he was not given food on a regular basis, the burden shifts to the Respondent State to prove the contrary. Given that it has not done so in the present circumstances, this Court finds that the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right not to be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment. See Huri-Laws v. Nigeria Communication 225/98 (2000) AHRLR 273 (ACHPR 2000) §. 41. See John Modise v. Botswana Communication 97/93 (2000) AHRLR 30 (ACHPR 2000) §. 91. With respect specifically to the lack of food, see Moisejevs v. Latvia, No. 64846/01, §. 80, 15 June 2006. "See Kennedy Owino Onyachi and Charles John Mwanini Njoka v. Tanzania, op. cit., §§ 142-145. 39 40 33