'00&i1'$ 85.On the basis of this imbalance between the individual and the State, the burden of proof will therefore shift to the Respondent State to prove that the Applicants' passports were revoked in accordance with Article 34 of the 2011 Rwandan lmmigration and Emigration Law and other relevant standards and that consequently this was not done in an arbitrary manner. 86.The Court notes that by the Respondent State failing to respond to the Applicants' allegation that it revoked their passports, this amounts to the Respondent State not having denied this claim. 87. The Court finds that the Respondent State has not provided proof that its revocation of the Applicants' passport was based on their use of the passports in an inappropriate manner as required underArticle 34 of its lmmigration and Emigration Law. 88.The Respondent State is also required to demonstrate that the revocation of the Applicant's passports was done in line with the relevant international standards. 89.The Court notes that the pertinent aforementioned international standards are set out in Article 12(2) of the Charter as this provision provides for the right to freedom of movement to which the issue of possession of passports relates. This provision states that: "Every individual shall have the right to leave any country including his own, and to return to his country. This right may only be subject to restrictions, provided for by law for the protection of national security, law and order, public health or morality". 90. The Court further notes that Articles 12(2) and (3) of the lnternational Covenant for Civil and Political Rights (hereinafter referred to as "the ICCPR)23 has provisions similar to Article 12(2) of the Charter in the following terms: '2.Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own. 3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those 2s The Respondent State became a Party to the ICCPR on 16 April 1975 21 -7-- ra \__----"