For an investigation into an alleged unlawful killing by State agents to be effective, the person responsible for and carrying on the investigation must be independent and impartial in law and in practice. See GULEC Vs. TURKEY (1998) ECHR 215 93/ 93 at para 81-82. In this case, there was a Senate Committee convened to investigate the events that led to this case. The Committee considered submissions from various persons and groups involved and presented a report. None of the current Applicants (Nos 212) as invited to testify in the course of the investigation. It may be argued that both parties, especially the Applicant, have not questioned the impartiality of the investigation. Be that as it may the exclusion of the interest of the individuals currently pursuing this case is a minus for that investigating body whose evidence does not bind this Court. Thus it cannot be said that the current Applicants were party to the investigation. The National Human Rights Commission made recommendations for monetary compensation after castigating the law enforcement officers for breaching the rules of engagement, recognized by international law and practice. Placing the two reports side by side, it appears that the findings of the National Human Rights Commission, an Institution established under the laws of the Defendant is more credible having been based on credible evidence clearly stated. Accordingly, the Court holds that the defense of self –defense exercised against a powerful terrorist group cannot stand in view of lack of evidence to support the plea. Accordingly, the Defendant failed in this case to establish the defense of self – defense or necessity. The Court recognizes the devastation that Boko Haram have 45