every defence and put forward what will rebut the claim or take the risk of not putting any evidence at all if the claim by their estimation is weak and unproven. It is worthy of note, that on the day the incident occurred, the Plaintiff entered the Defendant’s territory in good health. This the Defendant admitted in the testimony of DW 1. Subsequently after the Plaintiff departed from the territory of the Defendant, the medical examination revealed that he sustained injuries caused by physical assault. In Rudyak V. Ukraine (Application no. 40514/06) 4 September 2014, the European Court of Human Right in its judgment held that: where an individual is taken into police custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of the cause of the injury, this would not only ensure the Applicant’s right are respected but would also enable the respondent Government to discharge their burden of providing a plausible explanation of those injuries. Failing which a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention. Though the Defendant attached an investigation report where it narrated what transpired between the Plaintiff and the officers at the border, it failed to describe with specificity what led to the alleged assault on the Plaintiff or lead sufficient evidence to disprove the Plaintiff’s claim. More so, it did not present any evidence suggesting that at the time the Plaintiff left its border, he was in a good condition of health. 13