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 th since 30 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 ». 6 ii. That if the recognition referred to by Article 1 of the Charter « bestows them universality , 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 activities of a petroleum consortium in Southern Nigeria by re-affirming that the African Charter was creating a certain number of obligations for the States Parties which include, in 7 particular, « the responsibility of respecting, protecting, promoting and implementing » the rights which it sets out before specifying that « the Governments have a responsibility to protect their citizens, not only by adopting appropriate legislation and by applying them effectively, but also by protecting the said citizens from harmful activities which can be perpetrated by private parties. This responsibility requires positive action on their part ». iii. That the interpretation by the Commission of Article 1 of the African Charter can be compared with that of the United Nations Human Rights Commission on Article 2 of the International Convention on 8 Civil and Political Rights ([ICCPR]) , interpretation in which the [HRC] affirms that the provision contained in Article 2 embraced an obligation of « absolute character » with « effect immediate 9 » requiring the States Parties to « take legislative, judicial, administrative, educational and other 10 appropriate measures to fulfill their obligations » iv. That the Commission had to judge that the refusal or the negligence of the • • Authorities of a State Party to protect journalists and human rights activists against repeated attacks (harassment, arbitrary arrests, assassination, torture) by the security forces and unidentified groups, constitutes (d) a violation of the said Charter even if this State or its 11 officers are (were) not the direct perpetrators of this violation».