were assaulted by the police got compensation, and that if the deceased persons did not die, they would also have received compensation. 60. The Complainant further notes that the right to a remedy or reparation in the event of a human rights violation is well-entrenched in international law. They make reference to the Draft Articles on Responsibility of the State for Internationally Wrongful Acts prepared by the International Law Commission, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on AC HP R Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which provide for a right to an effective remedy and compensation. The Complainant relies on the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Velasquez Rodriguez case where the Court ruled that “every violation of an international obligation which results in harm creates a duty to make adequate reparations”, and the decision of the African Commission in Embga Mekong Louis v Cameroon where the African Commission granted compensation to the legal heirs and next of kin of a deceased victim for human rights violations. 61. The Complainant submits that the relatives of the deceased persons named in this Communication “were psychologically traumatized and emotionally torn by the circumstances of these killing.” The Complainant argues that in not making it possible for the victims‟ next of kin to seek reparations, the Respondent State is in violation of Article 1 of the African Charter which direct State parties to “adopt legislative or other measures to give effect to the rights protected under the Charter.” 62. The Complainant further recalls the position adopted by the African Commission in its decision in Jawara v The Gambia2 where it held that violation of any other right automatically amounts to a violation of Article 1 of the African Charter. 2 Communications 147/95, 149/96 15