to support their claims. Such evidence must be convincing to establish a connection between them and the claimed facts” See DAOUDA GARBA V. REPUBLIQUE DU BENIN ECW/CCJ/JUD/01/10 - CCJLR 2010, p. 12 par.35. 54. Since the Applicant is alleging the violation of his right to property, the hallmark of a successful claim in this wise is the proof of ownership. Every Applicant whether a natural or legal person must be able to demonstrate the existence of a proprietary right over the property at stake in order to qualify as a victim under the African Charter. See LA SOCIETE BEDIR SARL V. REPUBLIC OF NIGER, ECW/CCJ/JUD/11/20. 55. The Court will at this point review all the facts before it to enable it come to a finding whether the Applicant has established a proprietary interest in the disputed property. The Court recognises the fundamental rule of evidence of burden of proof which mandates who ever asserts a fact to establish same. In this wise, it behooves on the Applicant who claims ownership of the disputed property to place before the court sufficient evidence to support his proprietary interest in the said property. The only such document presented to the Court is the Certificate of Occupancy No 11766 (exhibit1), which as contended by the Respondent is inconsistent with his name. 56. While the absence of a resolution of the discrepancy in names alleged by the Respondent raises a dent in the effective establishment of the Applicant’s proprietary interest over the disputed property, the facts before the Court present a number of similarities between Siekhe Gueye and the Applicant named Cheikh GUEYE creating a misgiving as to the existence of both parties in question. This therefore requires an all-inclusive analysis of these similar facts to assist the Court in a considered determination of the application. 20