identify the culprits of an alleged attack, neither does it establish a direct link with the said attacker. 39. Similarly; if the photocopy of the Applicant's passport proves that he actually crossed the Nigeria-Benin border, it does not establish a particular link with the supposed attacker. Indeed, to enable the Court find that violations have occurred, particularly in the instant case, the Applicant was expected to file sufficiently convincing, and not equivocal evidence. 40. In that, it is a well-established legal principle that the party claiming a right must show evidence of that right, by all means. In civil matters, as in the instant case, where a party is claiming reparation of harm, that party must show evidence of the harm done as required by the law in criminal matters. In the case concerning Kodilinye v. Odu 2 W.A.C.A. 336, the West African Court of Appeal, comprising five English-speaking West African States as at then, recalled the said principle in adding that to obtain reparation for a harm done, the plaintiff must rely on concrete evidence and not on the weaknesses of the defence. 41. This is similar to the Applicant's position in the instant case. His version of the facts shows inconsistencies and inaccuracies, such that they tend to discredit his cause, more so when he is [sic] not back up his claim with any evidence. The Court is of the view that the only point of evidence provided by the Applicant is neither sufficient nor compelling enough to convince the Court of the truth of the alleged attack committed by the Benin Immigration Officers, in order for the Court to implicate the State in any offence. Consecuently, For these reasons, The Court: In a public sitting, after hearing both sides, in first and last resort, in a matter concerning human rights violation, As to Formal Presentation 42. Dismisses the objection regarding incompetence of the Court as raised by the Republic of Benin and declares that it has jurisdiction to adjudicate on the case. As to Merits 43. Adjudges that the allegations of human rights violations by the Applicant are not backed by sufficient and convincing evidence. Consequently, the Application filed by the Applicant is dismissed. As to Costs 44. Article 66 of the Rules of the Court states that the unsuccessful party shall be ordered to pay costs. However, in the instant case, the circumstances permit the Court to order that each party bears its own cost. Thus made, declared and delivered in a public sitting at Abuja, by the Community Court of Justice; on the day, month and year stated above. And the following Members of the Court hereby append their signatures: 1. Hon Justice Awa Nana Daboya - Presiding 2. Hon Justice Hansine N. Donli - Member 3. Hon. Justice Soumana D. Sidibé - Member Assisted by Maître Athanase Atannon - Registrar 6