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; th Done in Banjul, The Gambia at the 46 Ordinary Session of the African Commission on Human and th th Peoples’ Rights held from 11 –25 November 2009. Footnotes th 1. Cameroon ratified the Charter on 26 June 1989. 2. INTERIGHTS enjoys observer status with the African Commission. 3. Cf. Law No 75/17 of the 08/12/1975 relative to the procedure before the Supreme Court. 4. communication 59/91 : Louis Emgba Mekongo/Cameroon 5. communication 630/1995 : Abdoulaye Mazou/Cameroon 6. See Juan Antonio Carrillo Salcedo « Article 1 » In the European Human Rights Convention : commentary Article by Article under the direction of Louis Edmond Pettiti, Emmanuel Decaux and Pierre-Henry Imbert, Edition Economica 1999 page 141 « the use of the word in Article 1 recognizes preferably terms such as protect or respect, suggests that the recognized rights have a value erga omnes » 7. communication 155/96 Action Centre for Economic and Social Rights vs. Nigeria paragraph 44. 8. See Note No. 22 9. General Observation No. 31 « the nature of the legal obligation imposed on the States Parties to the Convention of the United Nations Human Rights Commission, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13. Op. Cit. Paragraph 14 10. Cf. General Observation No. 31 « the nature of the legal obligation imposed on the States Parties to the Convention » of the United Nations Human Rights Commission, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13. Op. Cit. Paragraph 7 ». 11. Cf. Communication 74/92 National Human Rights and Liberties Commission against Chad, paragraph [2]5. 12. See communications: No. 74/92; No. 137/94; No. 48/90; No. 50/91 ; No. 52/91; No. 89/93; No. 13[7]/94; No. 15[6]/96; No. 161/97; No. 147/95; No. 149/96; No. 155/96; No. 211/98; No.b223/98 [sic]. 13. Cf. communication No. 147/95 and 149/96 Sir Dawda K. Jawara against The Gambia paragraph 46. 14. Cf. communication No. 140/94, 141/94 et 145/95 Constitutional Rights Project, Civil Liberties Organization and Media Rights Agenda vs. Nigeria paragraph 54 th 15. Article 1 Cf. CEDH, Affaire Kilic vs. Turkey, 28 March, 2000 paragraph 62 enjoins the State not only to refrain from the intentional and unlawful taking of life, but also to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction (see the L.C.B. v. the United Kingdom judgment of 9 June 1998, Reports 1998-III, p. 1403, § 36 ). This involves a primary duty on the State to secure the right to life by putting in place effective criminal-law provisions to deter the commission of offences against the person, backed up by law-enforcement machinery for the prevention, suppression and punishment of breaches of such provisions. It also extends in appropriate circumstances to a positive obligation on the authorities to take preventive operational measures to protect an individual or individuals whose life is at risk from the criminal acts of another individual (see the Osman judgment cited above, p. 3159, § 115 ). 16. Cf Cameroon Tribune No. 5231 dated 7 October 1992, page 16 17. Cf. «The Minister Kontchou Kouamegni reacts to the SDF strategy of chaos » in Cameroun Tribune No. 5246 th du 26 October 1992. Page 4 th 18. Cf. Cameroun Tribune No. 5231 dated 7 October 1992 page 8. 19. See communication 211/98 Legal Resources Foundation vs. Zimbabwe. 20. Article 1 See communications : No. 74/92 ; No. 137/94 ; No. 48/90 ; No. 50/91; No. 52/91; No. 89/93; [No. 137/94], No. 139/94; No. 154/96; No. 161/97; No. 147/95; No. 149/96; No. 155/96; No. 211/98; No.[b]223/98, in which the African Commission has had to clarify the scope of Article 1 of the Charter. 21. communication 74/92, National Human Rights and Liberties Commission vs. Chad; communication 155/96, Social and Economic Rights Action Centre and the Centre for Economic and Social Rights vs. Nigeria. 22. communication 245/2002, Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum vs. Zimbabwe, parag. 143. 23. The distinction between these two types of obligations in international law has for the first time been established in explicit terms by D. Donatti who has made it a general principle( D. Donati I Trattati internazionali nel diritto costituzionale, Turin, Unione tipografico-editrice torinese, 1906, vol. I . p. 343 et suivant ). It had already implicitly been done by H. Triepel where he highlighted the difference between domestic law immediately applicable and domestic law that is internationally pertinent (H. Triepel, Volkerrecht und Landesrecht, Leipzig