Martins: Yes. But all you know is that you have problems with your manhood? Pw1: Yes. Martins: What kind of problem? Pw1: I cannot function sexually the way I was supposed to and as a result my doctor gave me some prescriptions." From the foregoing evidence, there is no certainty about plaintiff's loss of manhood. The court is unable to find that it is more probable than not that the plaintiff has lost his manhood. In such a scenario of uncertainty or doubt, the case of Rhesa Shipping Co. SA v. Edmunds, otherwise called The Popi M. (198) 2 All E.R. 712 at p. 718 per Lord Brandon, decides that the party on whom lies the burden of proving the existence of the fact should fail. In view of the foregoing, the court is unable to conclude that the plaintiff has lost his manhood as he claimed. Consequently, the court will not consider it as a factor in awarding damages or compensation. Thus the court will consider the loss of job and for that matter, loss of earnings, illegal detention for 22 days as well as physical injury which no doubt would have caused him pain and suffering, in assessing the damages for the plaintiff. Decision 46. Having regard to Article 4 (g) of the ECOWAS Revised Treaty, which enables the court to apply the ACHPR, and having regard to the following provisions of the ACHPR: Article 5-prohibition against torture; Article 6- prohibition against unlawful arrest; Article 7(b)-presumption of innocence until proven guilty; Article 7(d)-right to be tried within a reasonable time; and having regard to the findings of fact made herein, the court decides that the plaintiff has established his case that he was arrested, detained and tortured by the defendant's agents for 22 days, without any lawful excuse and without trial. 47. Consequently, the court grants Reliefs (a), (b) and (c) set out above. There is no satisfactory evidence that the plaintiff's family is being harassed or intimidated so the court refuses to grant Relief (d). On Relief (e) the court decides to award the plaintiff damages in the sum of two hundred thousand US dollars (US$200,000.00). Costs 48. The plaintiff is entitled to costs in this action which shall be borne by the defendant. The Chief Registrar is directed to assess the costs taking into account the relevant provisions in Articles 66- 69 of the Court's Rules of Procedure. This decision has been given in open court in accordance with Article 61 of the Court's Rules of Procedure at the seat of the court in Abuja this 16th day of December 2010 in the presence of: Hon. lustier Hansine N. Donli - Presiding Judge Hon. Justice Awa Nana Daboya - Member Hon. Justice Anthony A. Benin - Member Assisted by Tony Anene-Maidoh - Chief Registrar 8