× Access to the Court is open to the following: d) Individuals on application for relief for violation of their human rights; the submission of application for which shall: [sic] of the Supplementary Protocol of the Court, which provides that "Access to the Court is open to ... individuals on application for relief for violation of their human rights; the submission of application for which shall not be anonymous." 28. Article 10(d) × Access to the Court is open to the following: d) Individuals on application for relief for violation of their human rights; the submission of application for which shall: [sic] of the Supplementary Protocol on the Court certainly requires that for an application to be admissible it must be not be anonymous; but the anonymity of an application presupposes that the author is not identified; that implies that neither the name nor status nor profession or nationality of the Applicant are known. 29. But, the Court finds that the Application of Mr. Daouda Garba contains all these indications for his identification. Besides, the Court finds that Mr. Daouda Garba, having engaged the services of a lawyer for his defence, has fulfilled all the conditions required for the representation in issue. 30. That within the context of the instant action, the lawyer adduced memorials and other pleadings before the Court for and on behalf of his client; that by engaging the services of a lawyer, the Applicant gave his lawyer the mandate to defend him and file all documents to that effect. The Court concludes, in this circumstance, that the Application filed by Mr. Daouda Garba does not need any form of signature from him in order to be admissible. The Court is equally of the view that the absence of the indication of the place of residence cannot constitute an obstacle to the admissibility of his Application and that these incidental facts must be joined to the merits. 31. Consequently, the Court finds that the Preliminary Objection raised by the Defendant in regard to the admissibility of the Application and the incompetence of the Court fails. As Regards Violation of Human Rights 32. The Applicant considered that following the attack on him by the Benin Immigration Officers, his right to dignity and to freedom of movement as guaranteed by Articles 1, 2, and 12 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, have been violated by the Defendant. 33. In reply, the Defendant maintained that the Applicant did not provide sufficient evidence as to the allegations of violation of his rights and cast doubt not only on the facts as pleaded by the Applicant, but also on the evidence in support of his allegations (medical certificate). The issue at stake therefore is the proof for the facts alleged by the Applicant, and refuted by the Defendant. 34. Article 9 of the Supplementary Protocol on the Court states that the Court has jurisdiction to determine cases of violation of human rights that occur in any Member State. The cases of violation of human rights must be backed by indications of evidence which enable the Court to find that such violation has occurred in order for it to prefer sanctions if need be. 35. It is a general rule in law that during trial the party that makes allegations must provide the evidence. The onus of constituting and demonstrating evidence is therefore upon the litigating parties. They must use all the legal means available and furnish the points of evidence which go to support their claims. The evidence must be convincing in order to establish a link with the alleged facts, in the instant case, the Applicant pleaded a photograph showing a bruised left eye and argued thereby that following the medical visit (not signed) he made to Iduna Specialist Hospital Ltd., the chief ophthalmologist, Mr. Jafaar Kadiri, issued him with a report; but this report is equally not covered by a letter-head from the hospital. 36. As indicated by the Defendant, between the alleged attack on Mr. Daouda Garba and the medical visit to acknowledge the attack, six days elapsed; which indeed poses a problem of link between the said attack and the injuries sustained by the Applicant. 37. The facts or violation as filed by the Applicant were refuted by the Defendant. During the oral proceedings, the Applicant had the possibility, if he wished, to call witnesses who may have been present on the scene of his attack; but no witness was cited by the Applicant so as to enable the Court adjudge as to the truth of the facts alleged by the Applicant, and denied by the Defendant. 38. Furthermore, the Applicant had the possibility of reporting the case to the police authorities, who could have set off judicial proceedings against the attackers or proceeded to gather evidence. In that manner, the Benin Immigration Officers who may have carried out the attack on the person of Mr. Daouda Garba would have been identified. A mere pleading of the medical certificate for a bruised eye does not enable one to 5