responsibility to protect life. This responsibility requires a broad interpretation which includes, the obligation to prevent arbitrary deprivation of the right to life, transparent investigation into such deprivation that might have occurred and hold responsible to account and provide effective remedy and reparation for victim (s) including in appropriate circumstances the immediate family. The Defendant State in also responsible for the violation of right by all their agents (executive, legislative and judiciary) as well as other public or governmental authorities of all levels. The test as to determine the legality of a deprivation is lawful or not in international law is the test of arbitrariness. This principle has been recognized by this Court including in the recent case of Wing Commander Danladi Angulu Kwasu v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (Suit No. ECW/CCJ/APP/24/15) judgement delivered on the 10th of October, 2017. As earlier noted, right to life is undoubtedly the pivotal point in the concept of the protection of human rights. However, it is not an absolute right. The above provisions which safeguard the right to life, also set out circumstances where deprivation of life may be justified. These circumstances must be strictly construed in light of the fundamental nature of this right which the State is under the obligation to protect. The crux of the present application axes on the alleged arrest, physical assault and unlawful murder of the Plaintiffs’ sole benefactor by the officers of the Defendant wherein the Plaintiffs alleged that the said officers arrested their father (Ikyase Chia) without any reason or explanation and arbitrarily murdered him. It is a general rule that 006Fnus of proof lies on the party who seeks to support his case by a particular fact of which he is supposed to be cognizant. In Elsi’s case, R LilichNewyork (1992) 77, the international Tribunal stated on burden of proof as follows: 19