as it would elucidate and establish the truth of what actually happened to Mr. Nunugwo in detention and absolve the officials of the Respondent of liability with regardto his death. Meanwhile, it is part of the defence ofthe Respondent that it reported the death to the Police which has carried out it's own investigations, so where is the report? 52. The Respondent also admitted that late Mr. Nunugwo okalked into the Commission" (EFCC) in good health. Thus, this goes to show that atthe time of his arrest, he was in good health and showed no signs of any ailment. Having established these facts, it therefore behooves the Respondent to give a plausible explanation of Mr. Nunugwo's cause of death. In this wise, the Court aligns itself with the position of the European Court wherein it held that: "Vf/here an individual is taken into custody in good health and dies at the hands of the security forces, the obligation on the authorities to accountfor the treatment of that individual is particularly stringent. In assessing evidence, the Court has generally applied the standard proof "beyond reasonable doubt". However, frr* of proof may follow the coexistence of sfficiently strong, clear and concordant such interferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions offact. Where the events in issue lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive control in detention, strong presumptions offact will arise in respect of injuries and death occurring during that detention. Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide satisfactory and convincing explanation". See SHAVADZE GEORGIA (aptplication no. para 72 080/ t 2) JUDGMENT I 9 November 2 02 v. 0 31. N ffi {L-* \