There is no dispute as to the status of the police and AEPB officials as agents of the Defendant as this has been admitted by the Defendant in its defence. Also not in issue is the capacity under which the Agents carried out the actions complained of. See paragraph 2.26 of the Defence. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights in Velasquez Rodriguez V. Honduras, Series C, No. 4, para. 170 (1988) said: "Under International Law a State is responsible for the acts of its agents undertaken in their official capacity and for their omission, even when those agents act outside the sphere of their authority or violate internal law". In line with the above therefore the defendant is responsible for the act of its agents which violated the rights of the plaintiffs as found above. The Defendant in its defence led no evidence suggesting that they have conducted an investigation into the allegation of the Plaintiffs case based upon which they reached the conclusion that Plaintiffs averments were false. The state has the responsibility once aware of an incident such as those complained of by the Plaintiffs, to carry out impartial and effective investigation as a means to unravel the truth. This has not been shown to have been done in this case. Rather the Defendants maintained in their defence that the Plaintiffs are prostitutes with no evidence to substantiate that. In Tidjani Konte V. Republic of Ghana, the Court observed that: "The State remains the sole obligator to respect, protect and fulfill human rights under the Treaty and placed reliance on Article 6 of the Report of the 53rd Session 39