prohibits all forms of treatment that undermine the inherent dignity of an individual.21 89. In the instant Application, the Applicant alleges that he was tortured by police during the investigation of the crime with which he was charged and convicted. Despite the Respondent State’s argument that this issue was not raised at the domestic level, the Court recalls its earlier finding, as manifest from the record, that the Respondent State’s High Court addressed this issue and dismissed the Applicant’s allegation. While assessing the validity and admissibility of the Applicant’s confession, both the High Court and the Court of Appeal confirmed that the Applicant was not subjected to any illtreatment or torture in the course of obtaining his confession. 90. In this connection, the Court recalls its consistent position that domestic courts are better positioned to evaluate the factual intricacies surrounding a case and in absence of any glaring errors or miscarriage of justice, the Court does not deem it imperative to supplant its own assessment and arrive at a different factual determination.22 91. In accordance with the principle that the burden of proof lies with the party making an assertion, the Court maintains that “[g]eneral statements to the effect that [a] right has been violated are not enough. More substantiation is required.”23 The Court notes that the Applicant has made no submissions to rebut the findings of both the High Court and the Court of Appeal and support his allegation that he was tortured. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Applicant’s allegation of being subjected to torture while he was in police custody. It thus holds that the Respondent State has not violated the Applicant’s right to dignity by means of subjecting him to torture in order to extract a confession statement. 21 Makungu Misalaba v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 033/2016, Judgment of 7 November 2023 (merits and reparations), § 165. 22 Kijiji Isiaga v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (21 March 2018) 2 AfCLR 218, § 65. 23 George Maili Kemboge v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (11 May 2018) 2 AfCLR 369, § 51. 21