101. The Complainant submits that the Respondent State has violated Article 1 in that it has failed to “adopt legislative or other measures” to ensure that there is compensatory damages in Zimbabwean Law to give just satisfaction to victims of wrongful death particularly close family and relatives who are bereaved because of such deaths. The Complainant further argues that the Respondent State has failed to fulfill the obligation to “promote and respect” human rights in that families that are robbed of a close relative through AC HP R killings that amount to extra-judicial killings have no recourse to the national law. This is as a result of the absence of a law providing for such a remedy at the national level. 102. To rebut the allegation of a violation of Article 1 of the African Charter, the Respondent State argues that the Common Law position on entitlement to compensation is that dependents of a deceased can claim such compensation for the pecuniary loss they have suffered in consequence of the death of a person who maintained or had an obligation to maintain them. Therefore Zimbabwean Common Law provides for compensation for damages for acquillian action or actio injuriarum. It does not provide damages for solatium. This means generally in Zimbabwe, no compensation is payable for the wrongful death of a person, as it is not an injury to the surviving person. The only damages that are available are loss of support to dependents of the deceased and funeral expenses. 103. The Respondent State further argues that it would be outside the mandate of the African Commission to make a recommendation as requested by the Complainant that the Respondent State complies with its obligations under the Charter by passing legislation in order to create an action for bereavement damages. The Respondent State in addition argues that the Complainant has not shown what provisions of the Charter provide for such compensation, except the national legislation of the United Kingdom. This, the Respondent 27