179. As mentioned by the Applicant, it listed nine names of alleged associates who allegedly were arrested at various locations, dates and times and who were taken to court, some released on bail and others detained by the order of national courts until bail was paid. 180. In addition to this list of names, this an opinion article attached to the case-file as Annexure 3, extracted from the website: http://saharareporters.com, with the title “How Nigeria´s Cybercrime Act is Been used to Try to Muzzle The Press”, reporting on the alleged arrests and detentions of the alleged victims of the Cybercrime Act. 181. The Court notes, however, that the Applicant has not offered any other means of evidence, namely the testimony of the alleged victims, to corroborate the alleged violations. That is, to confirm the arrests, imprisonments, and clarify the conditions and motivations underlying them, so that the Court can assess whether the alleged human rights violations actually occurred. 182. The evidence, documentary or testimonial, to be convincing must establish a relationship with the alleged fact. 183. In this case, no evidence was produced by the Applicant to demonstrate that the right to freedom of expression of its members, associates and employees has been violated by the Defendant State, as it has not proved in a way to convince that the alleged arrests or prisonment were motivated by the interpretation and application of the provisions of said Section 24 of the aforementioned law, made by agents of the Defendant State. 184. Consequently, in this part, the Court understands that the Applicant's claim must be dismissed. DECISION: 185. Therefore, for these reasons, the Court decides to declare: a) It is competent to examine the cause, considering that it is admissible. 41