protecting them from damaging acts that may be perpetrated by private parties." 158. The Inter-American Commission, in Maria da Penha and Maia Fernandes v. Brazil, also warned from impunity concerning acts of violence and underlined that, failure to fulfil the obligation to prevent, protect, and prosecute creates a climate that is conducive to such acts.48 159. In the present Communication, the Victims allege that the perpetrators of the sexual assaults they were subject to were police officers, while other identified and unidentified persons were also acting upon orders from the police officers. According to the Complainants, the State failed in its legal obligation to protect against discrimination and take measures to thoroughly investigate, prosecute, and punish in cases where it occurs by leaving the perpetrators unpunished. 160. The Complainants assert that when the Respondent State received the Complaints, it failed to institute investigations that could have led to the identification of the perpetrators or established criminal wrongdoing. Rather, it expected the victims to provide them with the identities of the perpetrators. The Respondent however claims that there were discrepancies and contradictions between what the Victims submitted in their testimonies before the PPO, and what they alleged in their application before the African Commission, which hampered the investigation of the violations.49 161. The Complainants argue that the omissions made by the Victims which the State describes as 'discrepancies' are due to the conditions under which the statements before the PPO were taken, and that not all the information that they provided was considered or written down. They further contend that the instances50 detailed in the Respondent State's submission does not discharge it from its obligation to investigate human rights violations because the omission is not material enough to constitute a bar, by the Victims, to an effective investigation. 162. Even though the Respondent State maintains that failure to supply the PPO with the information required, coupled with the inconsistencies in the account given by the Victims on the incidents that took place during the demonstrations hampered the investigations, they seem to agree with the Complainants that the Victims made omissions due to the circumstances in which they found themselves. This is seen in the Respondent State's submissions that, "The circumstances surrounding the incident characterized by a large crowd and the psychological and physical conditions of the female journalists, did not permit them to precisely recollect the sequence of events, which in turn did not help the investigation authority to identify the perpetrators." 163. Based on the above, it is the African Commission's opinion that the Respondent State failed to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators who committed gender-specific violations against the Victims. Failure to investigate effectively, with an outcome that will bring the perpetrators to justice, shows lack of commitment to take appropriate action by the State, especially when this lack of commitment is buttressed by excuses such as lack of sufficient information to carry out a proper investigation. Furthermore, failure to investigate compromises an international responsibility on the part of the Respondent State, both in the case of crimes committed by agents of the State and those committed by private individuals. 164. The effects of the violations perpetrated on the Victims were palpable physically, and even from the medical records. The State did not therefore need further information to proceed with the necessary investigation that will bring the perpetrators to justice. As the Inter-American Commission said in Maria da Penha and Maia Fernandes v. Brazil, and this Commission agrees, that "Ineffective judicial action, impunity, and the inability of victims to obtain compensation provide an example of the lack of commitment to take appropriate action..."51 165. The African Commission also holds the same view with the CEDAW which held that, violence against women affects, compromises or destroys the enjoyment and exercise by women of their fundamental and human rights in different spheres of life.52 In this regard, the African Commission considers violence against women as a form of discrimination against them. 166. To sum up, it is clear that the sexual assaults against the Victims which occurred on 25 May 2005 were acts of gender-based violence, perpetrated by state actors, and non-state actors under the control of state actors, that went unpunished. The violations were designed to silence women who were participating in the demonstration and deter their activism in the political affairs of the Respondent State which in turn, failed in its inescapable responsibility to take action against the perpetrators. 167. For these reasons, based on the above analysis, the African Commission finds the Respondent State in violation of Articles 2 and Article 18 (3) of the African Charter. 15