62.
As stated earlier, the burden of proof lies on he who asserts a clairn-. However,
where the burden placed on the Applicant has been discharged, the onus then
shifts to the Respondent. This principle was enunciated in the case of CHIEF
DAMIAN ONWUHAM & 22
"The inrtial burden of
ORS V,
FEDERA.L REPUBLIC OF NIGENA &
p*of
thus rests on the Applicant who is to
case. If that burden is met, the burden of proof then shifts
to
the
Respondentwho now has to lead evidence in rebuttal of the Applicants'
assertions by preponderance of evidence".
63.
The Respondent failed
to
attach any investigation feport
in connection with
the incident nor produce any conclusive finding by the Police Force Criminal
Investigation Department (FCID) who purportedly canied out the said
investigation. It is not enough to just mention that an investigation was carried
out without more. Such assertion must be supported with credible evidence
capable of drawing a reasonable conclusion on the acfual cause of death.
64.
This Court has established that in order to ensure effectiveness
in an
investigation of a human rights violation, such an o'investigation should be
carried out promptly by an impartial and duly authorized pers;on and must
contsist
of a comprehensive report of atl the submissio,ns
of the parties
.
-"
.l '
r'
.
'
involved in the case which must be deduced separately. The conduct/manner,
place and time the investigation was carried out must equally be put into
consideration",
See HEMBADOON
CHIA & 7
ORS v.
FEDERAL REPUBLIC
OF NIGERIA & ANOR ECWCCJ/JUD/2 I /I B @ p5.32 unreported.
1_9
%w-