international responsibility of the Defendant. See: Amnesty international & ors Vs. Sudan (Supra) International Law admits the duty of due diligence which enjoins States to take action to prevent violations of human rights of persons within its territory. This obligation cannot be derogated from nor even by any purported agreement or consent. All actions of institutions or officials of States are imputed to a State as its own conduct. (See Art 4) International Law Commission (Draft Articles on States Reasonability). Accordingly, it is clear that he right to life of the deceased cadet El Shaddai, Zinshin dung Zishiri Kwasu was violated by the acts of the officials of the Defendant. The Defendant merely made a general denial of the allegations and relied heavily on the consent purportedly given by the Plaintiff and the deceased to the NDA for the training and not to bring any claim in the event of injury or death. As earlier noted there is no contracting out of a public right and the consent did not take away the duty imposed by law on the Defendant to act with due care and diligence in ensuring that the right to life of the deceased is not violated. To decide otherwise will be to encourage acts of impunity as is manifest from the acts of the officials of the Defendants. It is sad that following the death of the Applicant’s son, the officials of the Defendant’s carried on as it nothing has happened. Apart from the letter of titled Notice of Casualty, addressed to the Applicant nothing else was done by the Defendants respecting the deceased. One would have expected that the Defendant 25