138. In view of this finding, the Court deems it unnecessary to examine the issue whether the third requirement relating to the availability of procedural safeguards against arbitrariness was met. 139. The Court therefore holds that the Respondent has violated the right to liberty of the Applicants under Article 6 of the Charter by arbitrarily re-arresting and charging them with fresh crimes based on the same facts after they were acquitted of the same by a court of law. C) The Alleged Incommunicado detention of the Applicants in contravention of Article 5 of the Charter i) Applicants' Submissions 140. The Applicants submit that, following their re-arrest by the Respondent's authorities, they were detained for four days in a police cell without food and access to the outside world. They allege that their detention was unlawful and violated their rights as guaranteed under Articles 5 of the Charter. i) Respondents'Submissions 141. The Respondent on its part denies the allegation that the Applicants were detained incommunicado without food, and requests that the Applicants be put to the strictest proof thereof. ii) The Court's Assessment 142. The Court notes that it is a fundamental rule of law that anyone who alleges a fact shall provide evidence to prove it. However, when it comes to violations of human rights, this rule cannot be rigidly applied. By their nature, some human rights violations relating to cases of incommunicado detention and enforced disappearances are shrouded with secrecy and are usually committed outside the shadow of law and public sight. The victims of human rights may thus be practically unable to prove their allegations as the means to verify their allegation are likely to be controlled by the State. 33 33 Inter-American Court of Human Rights Case of Velasquez-Rodriguez v. Honduras, Judgment of July 29, 1988, para. 127-136 £) 37 C-- .J((;.; --:--"' ~ ~ 00 ?--