poured water on him. That the beating was severe and he was in much pain. The 5th Applicant who is the vice chairman of the UDP party was attacked by the officers with batons and guns and he sustained injuries on the head. That he was kept in solitary confinement and released only once a day to bath. He also stated that the food given to him in detention was extremely terrible. The Respondent in response negated all the allegations above and reiterated that the Applicants were not treated inhumanly without more. By its very nature, documents made under oath are reflective of the true position in a matter. It is well-settled that averments in supporting affidavits are evidence upon which the Court may, in appropriate case act. In the case of MAGNUSSON V. KOIKI (1993) 9 NWLR (PT. 317) 287 SC, the Supreme Court observed that affidavit evidence upon which applications or motions are largely decided are not the same thing as pleadings in a civil suit, which are written statements (and not evidence generally) of facts relied upon by a party to establish his case or answer to his opponent's case. In the instant case, in their deposition on oath, Applicants presented a prima facie substantiation of an interference with their rights and arguable basis for violation. Where evidence is produced that suggests the victim suffered ill-treatment while in the custody of State authorities, the burden may shift to the State to produce evidence to show that the State was not responsible as was held in the case of MR. NIAN DIALLO V (2019) ECW/CCJ/JUD/14/19 In this instance, proof is what allows one to establish the value of truth or falsity, regarding a statement or a fact that is judicially relevant. To this end, it is submitted that mere averments in pleadings does not amount to proof. In case of OBIOMA C. O. OGUKWE V REPUBLIC OF GHANA (2016) ECW/CCJ/JUD/20/16 Para.8 @ page16 this Court held that: 22