The Court further notes that a state is not internationally responsible if its conduct was required by a peremptory norm of general international law. Or if its conduct was taken in conformity with the right to self-defense under the United Nations Charter. Or if it constituted a legitimate measure to pressure another state to comply with its international obligations and if it was taken as a result of force majeure (greater force) beyond the state’s control. If it could not reasonably be avoided in order to save a life or lives, or if it constituted the only means of safeguarding an essential interest of the state against a grave and imminent peril, where no essential interest of the states toward which the obligation exists (or of the international community) was impaired. In determining the issue, the Court analyzed the principle of states responsibility alongside the facts, i.e. references to military uniforms and equipment; in particular the imposition of a curfew; the conduct typical of security operations, such as the searches of premises and questioning of residents. Further, the Respondent’s corroboration of military operations in the area but had not reported any incidence of unlawful killing concludes therefore, that the area was under military operations. By extension, this area was under state responsibility, therefore a violation occasioned by persons acting under the direction or control of the state against a citizen will render the state liable. The Respondent, in the instant case maintained that there was State Control over the area but submitted that its agents had no report of the incident resulting in the death of Mr. Abutu Adamu. They denied knowledge of the named assailants and claimed to have conducted an investigation to ascertain the facts as alleged. The Court notes that the alleged unlawful and unjustified killing of Mr. Abutu Adamu by persons alleged to be soldiers/agents, of the Respondent, is supported by a Death Certificate marked and produced as Exhibit B states that the primary cause of death was “penetrating” and the secondary cause of death was “gunshot”. The Respondent did not rebut this fact but said that the incidence was unreported by their Special Task Force. The Court notes however, that the facts denote that the Mobile Police Unit transported the deceased and the first Applicant to Jos University Teaching Hospital where he was certified dead. The Court recalls that in discharging its obligation the State is required to investigate any alleged violation. The Court notes that the Respondent however, steadfastly claims to 12