001077 proof or counter the alleging party. In such circumstances, the Respondent State may be required to rebut a prima facie allegation. 93. Indeed, the Court has recognised exceptions to the rule by holding for instance in the above referenced comes to human case of Kennedy Owino Onyachi v. Tanzania that “when it rights, this rule cannot be rigidly applied” and there must be an exception among other circumstances, where “... the means to verify the allegation are likely to be controlled by the State’2°. In such cases, the “... the burden of proof is shared and the Court will assess the circumstances with a view to establishing the facts.” In the context of nationality, the Court has held in the matter of Anudo Ochieng Anudo v. Tanzania that where nationality” and “... since “... the Applicant maintains that he is of Tanzanian the Respondent State is contesting the Applicant's nationality ... the burden is on the Respondent State to prove the contrary.”2" 94. In respect of the exception to the above stated principle on the burden of proof, it is also worth referring to the case of [HRDA (Nubian Community) v. Kenya?? where the African Commission took the view that it lies with the Respondent State to prove that the Applicants were not Kenyan nationals, contrary to their claim. Owing to the restrictions imposed by the Respondent State, the Commission observed that it was virtually impossible for the Applicants to provide Commission also took a similar position proof of their nationality.22 The in the case of Amnesty International v. Zambia.4 95. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Nottebohm Case (Liechtenstien v. Guatemala)*> also held that to determine a nationality link, it is necessary to take into account the very important social factors which bind the Applicant to the Respondent 20 Kennedy Owino Onvachi v. United Republic of Tanzania (Merits), § 143. 21 Anudo Ochieng Anudo v. United Republic of Tanzania (Merits), § 80. 22 Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa (On behalf of the Nubian Community in Kenya) v Kenya, Communication, page 31, § 151 23 Idem, § 150 24 Amnesty International v. Zambia, Communication 212/98, § 41. a a 25 Nottebohm Case, Liechtenstien v. Guatemala, second phase of the judgment, April 1955, §§ 22 -24.