50 individuals or groups of individuals must answer for their actions, even when they act contrary to their directives. 140 122. The same logic should apply to the situation under discussion. As noted above, the situation of an organised group is different from that of a single private individual performing a specific act on behalf of a State. In the case of an organised group, the group normally engages in a series of activities. If it is under the overall control of a State, it must perforce engage the responsibility of that State for its activities, whether or not each of them was specifically imposed, requested or directed by the State. To a large extent the wise words used by the United States-Mexico General Claims Commission in the Youmans case with regard to State responsibility for acts of State military officials should hold true for acts of organised groups over which a State exercises overall control. 141 123. What has just been said should not, of course, blur the necessary distinction between the various legal situations described. In the case envisaged by Article 10 of the Draft on State Responsibility (as well as in the situation envisaged in Article 7 of the same Draft), State responsibility objectively follows from the fact that the individuals who engage in certain internationally wrongful acts possess, under the relevant legislation, the status of State officials or of officials of a State’s public entity. In the case under discussion here, that of organised groups, State responsibility is instead the objective corollary of the overall control exercised by the State over the group. Despite these legal differences, the fact 140 This sort of “objective” State responsibility also arises in a different case. Under the relevant rules on State responsibility as laid down in Article 7 of the International Law Commission Draft, a State incurs responsibility for acts of organs of its territorial governmental entities (regions, Länder, provinces, member States of Federal States, etc.) even if under the national Constitution these organs enjoy broad independence or complete autonomy. (See footnote 130 above). 141 The United States claimed that Mexico was responsible for the killing of United States nationals at the hands of a mob with the participation of Mexican soldiers. Mexico objected that, even if it were assumed that the soldiers were guilty of such participation, Mexico should not be held responsible for the wrongful acts of the soldiers, on the grounds that they had been ordered by the highest official in the locality to protect American citizens. Instead of carrying out these orders, however, they had acted in violation of them, in consequence of which the Americans had been killed. The Mexico/United States General Claims Commission dismissed the Mexican objection and held Mexico responsible. It stated that if international law were not to impute to a State wrongful acts committed by its officials outside their competence or contrary to instructions, “it would follow that no wrongful acts committed by an official could be considered as acts for which his Government could be held liable”. It then added that: “[s]oldiers inflicting personal injuries or committing wanton destruction or looting always act in disobedience of some rules laid down by superior authority. There could be no [international State] liability whatever for such misdeeds if the view were taken that any acts committed by soldiers in contravention of instructions must always be considered as personal acts” (Thomas H. Youmans (U.S.A.) v. United Mexican States, Decision of 23 November 1926, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, vol. IV, p. 116). Case No.: -94-1-A 15 July 1999