State makes reference to McCann and Others v the United Kingdom7where it was stated that an enquiry should be made whether a Convention does oblige Contracting Parties to incorporate its provisions into national law. It was held that it is not the role of Convention institutions to examine in abstracto the compatibility of national legislative or constitutional provisions with the requirements of the Convention. The Respondent State submits that in the present Communication, what the African Commission is referred to are AC HP R provisions of national legislation of a country which is not party to the African Charter. The Respondent State notes that the provisions of the African Charter do not provide for the prayer requested by the Complainant. 91. The Respondent State mentions that Zimbabwean Common Law provides for compensation for damages for acquillian action or actio injuriarum. It does not provide damages for solatium. The rights, duties and freedoms enshrined in the African Charter do not specifically provide for compensation in that respect. The Respondent State therefore submits that there is no violation of Article 1 of the African Charter. 92. The Respondent State further submits that there is no violation of Article 4 of the African Charter flowing from the deaths of the persons. It notes that the law enforcement agents were executing their constitutional mandate in tracking down suspected criminals. The Respondent State claims that the deaths occurred after proper identification by the police and the firing of warning shots. According to the Respondent State, the killings were unintentional which therefore means that there was no arbitrariness in the action of the law enforcement agents. 93. Finally the Respondent State submits that the damages cited by the Complainant have not been properly quantified as the deceased persons were 7 (21 EHRR) 97 24