Session), as well as the hearing of the Parties to the case in November 2003 during its 34th Ordinary Session. This leads the African Commission to presume that the re-introduction of the proceedings was not accidental but rather it was due to the action brought by the victims before the African Commission. 67. The African Commission considers that State Parties have an obligation to administer, on their territory, clear and diligent justice in order to give satisfaction to the complainants in the shortest possible time, in conformity with the relevant provisions of the African Charter and with the directives and principles of the right to a fair hearing in Africa. 68. In this particular case, the Commission notes that for 5 years, the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Respondent State had not provided any reaction to the complainants, in spite of several appeals by the latter. The Respondent State has admitted this fact but attributes it to lack of resources. Consideration of the case has indeed recommenced a short while ago, but one can reasonably conclude that this consideration was largely due to the seizure of the African Commission by the victims. Whereas this should not be the case, that is, justice to be administered by State Parties should not wait for the African Commission to be seized of a matter before it is rendered fully, clearly and diligently. This had not been the case with the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Respondent State. 69. Concerning the Compensation Commission, an ad hoc institution meant to solve the problem amicably at the national level, has shown its limitations in failing to produce any Report after twelve years of existence. The Respondent State does not refute these allegations, which allows one to believe that they are true. The African Commission therefore considers that this remedy is neither effective nor satisfactory. 70. For these reasons, the African Commission declares the Communication admissible. The Merits 71. Pursuant to Rule 120 of the Rules of Procedure of the African Commission, once a communication which is submitted under the terms of Article 55 of the Charter has been declared admissible, the Commission << examines it in the light of all the information which the complainant and the Respondent State concerned have submitted in writing, and it renders its observations on the subject >>. 72. It appears from the case file that parties have made their conclusions on the merits of the case since 30th March 2005, and that the information provided by the Parties to the Communication and added to the case file is sufficient to allow a ruling on the merits of the case. Submissions of the complainants on the merit 73. The complainants are requesting the African Commission to declare the State of Cameroon in violation of the relevant provisions of the African Charter and in particular of Articles 1, 2, 4, 7 and 14 of the said Charter and, in consequence, to declare the State of Cameroon bound to pay compensation for the prejudices sustained by the victims of the post electoral events of 1992. 74. The Commission is consequently obliged to examine the alleged violations on the basis of the facts and the law. On the violation of Article 1 of the African Charter 75. Under the terms of Article 1 of the African Charter, << the OAU Member States, Parties to the present Charter, recognize the rights, responsibilities and freedoms enunciated in this Charter and undertake to adopt legislative and other measures for their application>>. Arguments of the complainants pertaining to the violation of Article 1 of the African Charter 76. From the point of view of the violation of Article 1, the complainants contend: i. That the African Charter sets out in its Article 1 a general obligation on the protection of rights. In this context, like << the majority of the human rights treaties, besides requiring the States Parties to abstain from all violation or unauthorized restriction of the rights it proclaims, compels them to take positive measures to guarantee the widest possible protection of the individuals under their jurisdiction >>. ii. That if the recognition referred to by Article 1 of the Charter << bestows them universality6 , to the guaranteed rights, the taking of appropriate measures allows them to assume real effectiveness >>. That the Commission has had the opportunity to underscore this aspect during the examination of a case on the 6