those which cover a particular interest for all the States Parties to the African Charter and for the entire international Community since it is recognized in both domestic and international law. Therefore, as underscored by the Respondent State, if it cannot be directly responsible for the events, the State of Cameroon cannot also extricate itself from its responsibility for the actions of others which are a result of its failure to conform to the provisions prescribed by Article 1 of the African Charter and therefore of its obligation of RESULT . 121. Consequently, in having failed to prevent the 1992 post electoral violence even though there were early warning signs (evidently) of the events in question and not having obtained the intended results mentioned above, the State of Cameroon has failed in its obligation of Result imposed on it by Article 1 of the African Charter, and that in consequence the Respondent State is hardly in a position to invoke the circumstances of force majeure. It therefore follows that the victims and their dependents should have their rights restored in full. Analysis of the Commission with regard to the violation of Articles 2, 4, 7 and 14 of the African Charter 122. By invoking the violation of Articles 2 and 7 of the Charter, the Complainants wish to contest the freezing of the petition by the victims pertaining to responsibility of the issue which has been pending before the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court since 1998, in order to obtain full compensation of the corporal and material damages suffered. For the Complainants this procedure constitutes a violation of the right to an effective remedy. 123. Article 2 stipulates that: << Every individual has the right to enjoy the rights and freedoms recognized and guaranteed under the present Charter without distinction of any kind, such as race, ethnic group, colour, sex, language, religion, political or any other opinion, national or social origin, fortune, birth or other status >>. 124. It appears that complainants drew the infringement of the enjoyment of their rights and freedoms hence the violation of Article 2 of the Charter, from the fact that the respondent State failed to take adequate measures to prevent the violence which led to the physical harm and material damage suffered by the victims. 125. The African Commission is of the view that there is no doubt in the present case that the victims of the post elections violence suffered from damage which infringed the enjoyment of their rights. Respondent State did not debate the fact of harm being caused to the victims, but rather argued that the post election events are act of God and therefore it is beyond the capability of the State of Cameroon which should not be held liable 126. The African Commission is therefore in the position to hold that the provisions of Article 2 of the African Charter have been violated because the victims were enjoying their rights and freedoms when they were attacked. Such attacks which infringed their rights and freedoms were made possible because the State of Cameroon failed to fulfill its obligation to protect which incumbent upon the State. 127. Article 7 stipulates: << Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This right comprises: [...] (d) the right to be tried within a reasonable time by an impartial Court or Tribunal >>. 128. The term << remedy >> refers to << any procedure by means of which one submits a constitutive act of an alleged violation of the [Charter] to an institution qualified in this respect, for the purpose of obtaining, as the case may be, a cessation of the act, its annulment, its amendment or compensation >>32 . Is effective the remedy which not only exists de facto, but also is accessible to the party concerned and is appropriate. The petition should be appropriate so as to allow the denunciation of the alleged violations and the payment of appropriate compensation. 129. However, the effectiveness of the remedy is not linked to the expected outcomes. Nonetheless, the effects in question should be of a nature to remedy the alleged violation, otherwise the effective character of the remedy disappears. Finally, there is need to specify that the right to effective remedy sanctions an obligation of diligence, for what is guaranteed is the existence of an appropriate remedy and not its favourable result, but an unfavourable jurisprudence renders the remedy useless. 130. Considering all of the foregoing, the Commission is of the view that the complainants did not benefit from the right to an effective remedy, for if it was established that the remedy was available and assessable, it should be noted that it had not been appropriate since the fact that it was frozen made it impossible for the Court to make a ruling. The petition remained pending for more than 5 years before the complainants decided to seize the African Commission in 2003. 15