reasons adduced above admits the White paper reports of the Kaduna State and the Federal Republic of Nigeria marked as exhibit 26, 27 respectively and all other exhibits sought to be tendered by the applicants and will analyse the probative value as canvassed by both parties. 85. The Court will now proceed to analyse the facts as alleged by both parties to decide if they have proved their cases. The summary of the case for the Applicants is as follows; a) The attacks by the Christian youths of the Southern Kaduna community led to the brutal killing of over 800 (Eight Hundred) and injury of over 70 (seventy) Muslim members of southern Kaduna in Kaduna State. Details of the dead, next of kin and injured were annexed. b) Several properties including houses, shops, mosques, churches, vehicles, motorcycles and more were destroyed while some where completely burnt down. Details of these properties and their value were annexed. c) The Respondent failed to act in a timely manner to minimise the casualties of dead and injured as well as the loss of properties. The distance of the police Stations to the various scenes of the attacks are attached. d) The Respondent did not make any arrest nor prosecute the perpetrators in fulfilment of its obligation under Art 1 of the ACHPR. e) The survivors are refugees, having been rendered homeless, their farmland ravaged, livestock stolen or killed, children made orphans, girls raped, wives now widows and with no means of livelihood to take care of their surviving young ones. They further alleged that the internally displaced persons are living in very pathetic, sub human conditions with difficulty obtaining basic food, medications and sanitary items. f) The displaced children have lost school sessions and that about 189 women have had babies in an exceptionally unhealthy conditions and that the Respondent has not resettled the victims neither has acceptable standard of basic human necessities been provided. e) The Respondent did not compensate the Applicants and the other victims of the Southern Kaduna State Communities on whose behalf the action is instituted. g) The Respondent is therefore in violation of its obligation to protect the identified Muslims members of the Southern Kaduna State under Articles 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the ACHPR and other international human rights instruments to which it is a signatory. 23