threatening situations that can result in loss of life. States parties may be in violation of Article 6 [the right to life] even if such threats and situations do not result in loss of life”35 The duty to protect the right to life by law also includes an obligation for States parties to adopt any appropriate laws or other measures in order to protect life from all reasonably foreseeable threats, including from threats emanating from private persons and entities.36 In the present case, the Committee was informed, during its investigation, that sever beating, starvation, detention, and torture is inflicted on children accused of witchcraft. Moreover, children accused of witchcraft are poisoned and forced to take traditional and religious oils or drinks prepared for delivery which have caused abuse and torture on children.37 The Committee, therefore, finds that there is threat to life that comes with accusation of witchcraft of children. 62. The Committee also notes that Article 5(1) of the Charter must be read in conjunction with Article 1 which imposes due-diligence duties on States to protect children’s right to life. The Committee recalls the meaning and scope of “due diligence” in its General Comment No 05 which provides that “States’ due diligence is translated into the form of prevention of human rights violations, investigation of violations, prosecution of perpetrators and ensuring punishment of perpetrators.”38 The Committee recalls that “due diligence” creates an obligation of result, meaning that the compliance of a State Party is assessed against the backdrop of the efficiency and adequacy of the implementation measures it has undertaken to enforce laws, administrative and other measures.39 63. The Committee notes that the Respondent State provides shelter and other basic needs for children in vulnerable situations. While noting the measures undertaken by the Respondent State, the Committee observes that these measures are first, generic as they do not specifically address the issue of witchcraft accusation (such as the establishment of family court); second, the measures are limited to Akwa Ibom State while the allegation is made on several other states of the Respondent State; and third, only one case of prosecution of witchcraft related violence is provided as evidence of due diligence despite the prevalence of the issue. 64. In light of the foregoing, the Committee finds that the Respondent State has failed to prevent killings and life-threatening violence against children accused of witchcraft and has not demonstrated due diligence in investigating and prosecuting perpetrators. Accordingly, the Committee finds the Respondent State in violation of Article 5(1) of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child. 35 UN Hunan Rights Committee, General comment No. 36 para 7: https://docs.un.org/en/ccpr/c/gc/36 36 As above, para 18. 37 The Government of Akwa Ibom State of Nigeria, Report of Commission of Inquiry on witchcraft accusation and child rights abuses, June 2011, page 45. 38 ACERWC General Comment No 5 on Article 1 of the ACRWC on State Party Obligations and Systems Strengthening for Child Protection, para 5.1. 39 As above 19