Communication 341/07 - Equality Now v Ethiopia voluntarily undertaken. With respect to violations primarily committed by nonstate actors, the principle is well settled that: an illegal act which violates human rights and which is initially not directly imputable to a State (for example, because it is the act of a private person or because the person responsible has not been identified) can lead to international responsibility of the State, not because of the act itself, but because of the lack of due diligence (1) to prevent the violation or (2) to respond to it as required by the Convention [in the present case, the African Charter]. What is decisive is... whether the State has allowed the act to take place without taking measures to prevent it or to punish those responsible.9 123. It is therefore instructive to pinpoint the relevant obligations of the Respondent State with respect to the rights guaranteed under Article 4, 5, and 6 of the Charter which were violated by private individuals with respect to Ms Negash. 124. By Article 1 of the Charter, the Respondent State has the obligation to adopt legislative and other measures to give effect to the rights and freedoms under the Charter. This obligation gives rise to, among others, the duty to protect the rights and freedoms under the Charter.10 The duty to protect rights and freedom in turn requires the State to adopt and implement laws and other measures to prevent violations including by non-state actors, or to provide for redress when the rights and freedoms have been violated.11 125. Regarding prevention of violations, the state fails in its duty when it tolerates a situation where private persons or groups act freely and with impunity in violation of the rights guaranteed under the Charter.12 The duty to prevent violations is escalated when the State becomes aware of a situation where a specific individual or category of individuals face a real risk of their rights and freedoms being seriously violated by non-state actors. In such a case, the duty to prevent violations requires the state to adopt and diligently implement customised measures of protection that would avert the impending violations or indeed curb or eliminate altogether the prevailing violations. 126. In the present case, the Respondent State was aware or must be deemed to have been aware of the prevalence of marriage by abduction and rape, which meant that 9Velasquez-Rodriguez v. Honduras (Merits) (1988) IACtHR (Ser.C No.4) para. 172. 173; Communication 272/03 Association of Victims of Post Electoral Violence & INTERIGHTS v Cameroon (2009) ACHPR para. 89 10 Seeabove, para. 109, n7 11 SERAC Case, above. n7, para. 57; Communication 245/02 - Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v Zimbabwe (2006) ACHPR para. 143, 146, 147 12 Communication 245/02 - Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v Zimbabwe (2006) ACHPR paras. 143, 14-1 K(2*#RKH*%%