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. 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 th setting up a Rescue Committee for the Victims, in conformity with the Law of 26 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 14of 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 33 people other ; than the State; 4. The State of Cameroon had moreover violated the provisions of Article 7 of the same Charter;