Law 17. Article 1 of the African Charter reads: The Member States of the Organisation of African Unity parties to the present Charter shall recognise the rights, duties and freedoms enshrined in this Charter and shall undertake to adopt legislative or other measures to give effect to them. 18. In this case, the Complainant claims that not only did Government agents commit violations of the African Charter, but that the state failed to protect the rights in the Charter from violation by other parties. 19. The Government claims that no violations were committed by its agents, and that it had no control over violations committed by other parties, as Chad is in a state of civil war. 20. The Charter specifies in Article 1 that the States Parties shall not only recognise the rights duties and freedoms adopted by the Charter, but they should also "undertake.....measures to give effect to them". In other words, if a State neglects to ensure the rights in the African Charter, this can constitute a violation, even if the State or its agents are not the immediate cause of the violation. 21. The African Charter, unlike other human rights instruments 2 , does not allow for State parties to derogate from their treaty obligations during emergency situations. Thus, even a civil war in Chad cannot be used as an excuse by the State violating or permitting violations of rights in the African Charter. 22. In the present case, Chad has failed to provide security and stability in the country, thereby allowing serious and massive violations of human rights. The national armed forces are participants in the civil war and there have been several instances in which the Government has failed to intervene to prevent the assassination and killing of specific individuals. Even where it cannot be proved that violations were committed by government agents, the government had a responsibility to secure the safety and the liberty of its citizens, and to conduct investigations into murders. Chad therefore is responsible for the violations of the African Charter. 23. The Complainant claims that the events in Chad constitute violations of Articles 4 (right to life), 5 (Prohibition of torture, inhuman and degrading treatment), 6 (Right to life and security of the person), 7 (Right to a fair trial), and 10 (Right to freedom of expression). 24. In the present case, there has been no substantive response from the Government of Chad, only a blanket denial of responsibility. 25. The African Commission, in several previous decisions, has set out the principle that where allegations of human rights abuse go uncontested by the Government concerned, Commission must decide on the facts provided by the Complainant and treat those facts as given3 . This principle conforms with the practice of other international human rights adjudicatory bodies and the Commission's duty to protect human rights. Since the Government of Chad does not wish to participate in a dialogue, that the Commission must, regrettably, continue its consideration of the case on the basis of facts and opinions submitted by the complaints alone. 26. Thus, in the absence of a substantive response by the Government, in keeping with its practice, the Commission will take its decisions based on the events alleged by the Complainants. Holding For these reasons, the Commission Finds that there have been serious and massive violations of human rights in Chad. Finds that there have been violations of Articles 4 , 5 , 6, and 7. Praia, Cape Verde, October 1995. 1 Editor's note:The English language version is generally of shorter length (26 paragraphs in all) and is less detailed than the French language version (forty one paragraphs). 2 e.g. European Convention on Human Rights, Article 15 × Article 15 - Derogation in time of emergency 1. In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation any High Contracting Party may take measures derogating from its obligations under this 2