131. With regard to Articles 4 and 14, the complainants highlight the violations to the physical integrity and to the material damages suffered by the victims. 132. Under the terms of Article 4, << Human beings are inviolable. Every human being shall be entitled to respect for his life and the integrity of his person. No one may be arbitrarily deprived of this right >>. 133. Article 14 provides that "The right to property shall be guaranteed. It may only be encroached upon in the interest of public need or in the general interest of the community and in accordance with the provisions of appropriate laws." 134. In the light of their arguments, it would appear that the Parties seem to agree on the effectiveness of the violations to the lives of the victims and the considerable material damages which resulted from the violence of the post-electoral events. The Government has shown this agreement by setting up a Rescue Committee for the Victims, in conformity with the Law of 26th June 1964 which authorizes the State to provide << assistance within the limits of the amounts provided for this purpose or constant assistance in any other form >>. The said Committee had evaluated the amount of damages - interest at five billion, eight hundred and eight million, three hundred and ten thousand, and eight hundred and eighty francs CFA (5 808 310 880). From all appearances, the victims had not been entirely unprejudiced. 135. The Respondent State observed in its arguments that it was not at all a compensation on its part but a show of solidarity, because it is not directly responsible for the prejudices suffered by the victims, and that it was an act by private individuals that the victims could bring to justice so as to have satisfaction with respect to their grievances. 136. The Commission is of the view that the responsibility of the Government has been established. It therefore follows that the Government should pay compensation for the prejudices suffered. Despite the fact that the Government is denying it, it understood that it could not remain insensitive to its obligation to pay fair compensation to the victims, for this reason it set up a Committee to assess the damages suffered by the Complainants. Decision of the Commission 137. Based on the foregoing reasons, the African Commission Decides that: 1. The provisions of Article 1 of the African Charter impose on States Parties an obligation of Result; 2. The State of Cameroon failed in its general obligation as set forth and sanctioned under Article 1 of the African Charter and consequently the State of Cameroon has an obligation of RESULT; 3. Due to its obvious lack of diligence, the State of Cameroon is held responsible for the violation of Articles 2, 4, and 14 of the African Charter; and therefore, the State of Cameroon is responsible for the acts of violence which took place on its territory which gave rise to human rights violations, whether these acts had been committed by the State of Cameroon itself or by people other33 ; than the State; 4. The State of Cameroon had moreover violated the provisions of Article 7 of the same Charter; 138. Recommends to the State of Cameroon to: 1. Take all the necessary measures for guaranteeing the effective protection of human rights at all times, and everywhere both in times of peace and in times of war; 2. Pursue its commitment to give fair and equitable compensation to the victims and without delay, to pay fair and equitable compensation for the prejudices suffered by the victims or their beneficiaries; 3. That the amount of compensation for the damages and interest be fixed in accordance with applicable laws; Done in Banjul, The Gambia at the 46th Ordinary Session of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights held from 11th-25th November 2009. 16