clinical findings, including tlte cause of death. The requirements of promptness and reasonable expedition are implicit in this context". 67. The conduct of the Respondent relative to the treatment of the circumstances surrounding the suspicious death of the Applicants' brother as evidenced in the present case exhibits a sheer lack of commitment to its responsibilities under the African Charter. 68. In view of the above analysis, it is difficult to discern the reason why the State protracted investigation into the death of the Applicants' brother even when its officials had exclusive knowledge of the facts surrounding his death. In this wise, the Court notes that the totality of lack of due diligence which looks like a deliberate delay, depicts the involvement of the, State officials in this case. The prolonged delay casts a doubt in the mind ofthe Court as to whether the deceased died of malignant hypertension and severe hypertension cardiovascular disease or the acts of the State officials during interrogation exacerbated his hypertension thereby leading to his death. 69. The obligation to protect the right to life under Article 4, read in conjunction with the Member State's general duty under Article I to 'recognise the rights, duties and freedoms enshrined in this Charter ', requires by implication that there should be some form of effective official investigation when individuals in the custody of State agentq die in unclear circumstano"r espicially where formal complaints are made to rule out the involvement of its officials and identify those responsible. This obligation is not confined to cases where it has been established that the death was caused by an overt act of an agent of the State, but in all circumstances bereft of natural causes of death. 71 M fQ^@J