(.:CH"f). ACHPR ''':>'I<·Whl''''''' ' " African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights Human Rigllts our Collective Hesponsibility In the present case, the Complainant submits that although Sergeant Chance was convicted by the OMT, she had not, up to the date of submission of her Complaint, received any assurance that the convicted perpetrator would serve the sentence, i.e., life imprisonment and resignation from the army. She indicates that this situation motivates her claim to the execution of the sentence pronounced against Sergeant Chance by the OMT judgment. 51, 52. Considering on the one hand that international law recommends the prosecution of the perpetrator of the human rights violation, recalling the Commission's General Comment No.4, which states that the obligation of satisfaction includes "the right to the truth, (...) an official statement or court order restoring the dignity, reputation and rights of the victim and those closely linked to him or her; judicial and administrative sanctions against those responsible for the violations; a public apology, including acknowledgement of the facts and acceptance of responsibility (...)", and recalling further that in the case of S.L. v . Bulgaria, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women observed that failure to investigate, prosecute or punish perpetrators, coupled with failure to provide redress to victims and survivors, constitutes a tacit authorization or encouragement to perpetrate gender-based violence, as such failure is detrimental to society and, in particular, to women and children'", the Commission recognizes that the prosecution of Sergeant Chance and the effective execution of his sentence is one of the essential conditions for the reparation of the harm suffered. 53. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the Complainant's request for the execution of the sentence by Sergeant Chance is legitimate, which would also be a reaffirmation of the effectiveness of human rights protection in the State Party. On the Establishment of Legislative and Institutional Measures for the Enforcement of Judicial Decisions and Guarantees of Non-Repetition of Violations The guarantees of non-repetition established both by the BasicPrinciples and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law and by the Commission's General Comment No. 4 provide that "States Parties must take measures to combat impunity for violations committed. These measures 54. include (I) establishing effective and clear instructions to public officials, including law enforcement officials, (...), (VI) reviewing and revising laws, (...), promoting compliance with international standards and codes of conduct by public officials, including law enforcement officials, (...). The above-mentioned General Comment states that the objective of guarantees of non-repetition is to eliminate the structural causes of violence in 67 JURISPRUDENCE NOTE 2019, Overview of the juris An Organ oi lhe AfriGana~U Union «'l'~ Page 30 on 32