without trial and without recourse to Counsel even under the 1997 Constitution of The Gambia, chapter IV thereof. 34. Counsel for the defendant also said the fact that the head of the National Intelligence Agency did not know the reasons for the plaintiff's arrest cast doubt on the plaintiff's story. This argument does not hold. The reason being that the court has no evidence that it is only the head of the National Intelligence Agency who has the power to order the arrest of somebody. Nor is there evidence that he must necessarily know the reason for the arrest of everybody who is brought there under arrest. And even if there is such evidence, nonetheless that will only be an internal matter for the Agency to deal with their officers who acted outside their rules or regulations in arresting the plaintiff without authorisation from the head of the Agency. 35. Counsel for the defendant also submitted that the fact that the plaintiff's brother secured his bail with an expired passport and the fact that plaintiff jumped bail throw the plaintiff's character into doubt so the court should not believe him. This argument too is untenable. Desperate situations call for desperate measures. Who would not have acted the way the plaintiff did given the situation that he found himself in? Even if he had succeeded in escaping from the National Intelligence Agency detention centre without bail he would have been justified. The court rejects the call to declare the plaintiff as a person of bad character since he was justified in using every reasonable means to secure his freedom and flee for safety. 36. The court considers that the evidence of the plaintiff is consistent and credible and stands largely uncontroverted so we accept it and find he was arrested and detained by security agents of the defendant on the night of 27th March 2006. The court also accepts the evidence and finds the plaintiff was detained for 22 days before being granted bail with his brother as surety. The court accordingly rejects the submission of counsel for the defendant that the plaintiff might have been arrested by some other persons and not the defendant's agents. It was more probable for the defendant to arrest the plaintiff for his alleged unpatriotic acts and confrontational stance against the defendant than for any other unnamed person or institution, without cause. Again if the plaintiff was arrested by some persons other than defendant's agents, the probability is that he would have sought state protection against those persons, rather than flee the country for safety. Counsel's assertions are clearly not realistic. 37. The second issue is whether the plaintiff was tortured. The plaintiff said he was stripped naked, beaten with sticks and dragged on the ground. He also said electric shock was administered to his body, including his genitals and they kicked him with their boots. He said he went into coma for some minutes. His clothes were torn and he tendered them in evidence as Exhibit A1, without objection. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that since the defendant did not printer any contradictory evidence, it amounted to an admission. That is not, with respect, an accurate representation of the law. The reason is that the defendant was under no duty to lead contradictory evidence, having put the plaintiff to strict proof. What it means is that the plaintiff must produce sufficient evidence to discharge the evidential burden that rests on him. When he succeeds in doing that, and the evidence stands unimpeached, the court will then accept and act on it. See Morrow v. Morrow, supra. 38. In the absence of any facts and circumstances from which the court can say the plaintiff was not speaking the truth, and as the evidence stands unimpeached, the court is able to accept the plaintiffs evidence and find the plaintiff was tortured by the defendant's security agents while in detention. 39. The third issue is whether the plaintiff did suffer any harm or injury as a result of which he received medical attention. According to the plaintiff as a result of the torture he suffered physical injuries and has bodily pains. He tendered photographs-Exhibits B1-B8- which he said were taken after his release from detention showing facial wound, broken hand, wounds on his hips, back and arm. They were admitted without objection from defence counsel who reserved the right to address on them. The plaintiff said whilst in The Gambia, there was no medical officer who dared to treat him, so it was when he arrived in Dakar that he got medical attention with the aid of Amnesty International, Senegal branch. PW2 was the medical doctor who first attended to him. PW2 also referred him to a lady specialist dermatologist who in turn referred him to another specialist Professor Khan in Dakar. And when eventually he arrived in the United States of America on asylum he continued to receive treatment. All the medical reports were tendered and marked as Exhibits D1-D8. Pw2 substantially confirmed the various medical procedures the plaintiff said he underwent in Dakar. 40. In his address, counsel for the plaintiff referred to the medical reports and submitted that these attest to the fact that the plaintiff was tortured and sustained injuries in the process. For his part counsel for the defendant submitted that the evidence of PW2 was nothing but hearsay, following his admission in cross-examination that his knowledge of the facts derived from what the plaintiff told him. It is common 6