× 58. In June 2001, the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal, together with the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, regarding reports that five journalists in Colombia had received death threats and been declared "military targets" and "enemies of the peace" by elements of the paramilitary group "Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia". An urgent appeal was sent on 22 August 2001 to the Government of Zimbabwe, following reports that five journalists had received death threats and that their names appeared on a "hit list" allegedly drawn up by the State security services. of the Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Execution E/CN.4/2002/74 and paragraph 634 × 634. On 22 August 2001, the Special Rapporteur, jointly with the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, transmitted an urgent appeal on behalf of Mr. Basildou Peta, the news editor of the weekly Financial Gazette and a stringer for the Independent of London and the Star of Johannesburg. According to the information received, Mr. Peta along with four other journalists was on a hit list compiled by the Law and Order section of the Zimbabwe police and the Central Intelligence Organization, which oversees internal security. The other journalists listed are reportedly: Mr. Geoff Nyarota, editor of the Zimbabwe Daily News, Mr. Iden Wetherell, editor of the Zimbabwe Independent, Mr. Mark Chavunduka and Mr. Cornelius Nduna, respectively editor and news editor of the Standard Newspapers. It was reported that in the morning of the 21 August 2001, a group of police detectives visited the office of the Financial Gazette in Harare looking for Mr. Peta, who was out at that time. of E/CN.4/2002/74/Add.2, paragraphs 109-121 ofE/CN.4/2002/75/Add.2. According to the State it should therefore be taken that Complainant has abandoned its allegations in this regard. 111. The Respondent State informed the Commission that the Government of Zimbabwe had taken appropriate and effective measures to ensure that those who perpetrated the ascertainable violations specified in the communication been brought to book and as such had provided effective remedy to the aggrieved. The State indicated a number of measures taken to bring those accused of perpetrating violence to justice, including investigations conducted by the police, amendment of relevant legislation and the payment of compensation to victims. Regarding the violations of specific provisions of the Charter, the Respondent State noted as follows 112. As regards allegations of violation of Article 1 of the African Charter, the Respondent State pointed out that it unreservedly accepts that its obligations under the Charter are to respect, protect and promote the rights guaranteed under the Charter. By respecting the rights, Zimbabwe was required to refrain from interfering with the enjoyment of the rights. The respondent state indicated that the State had enacted the necessary policy and legislation, had made provision for effective remedies and taken the necessary administrative measures to ensure that its people enjoy their rights. 113. The State contended that the Communication is essentially to determine whether the alleged violations of human rights can be imputed to the Government of Zimbabwe since the Complainant averred that the Government planned, committed or otherwise aided and abetted a campaign of terror and this was based on the perceived interlink between the Government, ZANU (PF) and the war veterans. 114. The State noted that it is responsible for the acts of its organs and officials undertaken in their official capacity and for their omissions even when these organs act outside the sphere of their authority or violate internal law.32 The underscoring factor, according to the State, is that any such violation is imputable to the State only when the act is by a public authority which uses its authority to perpetrate the violation.33 The import of paragraph 172 × 172. Thus, in principle, any violation of rights recognized by the Convention carried out by an act of public authority or by persons who use their position of authority is imputable to the State. However, this does not define all the circumstances in which a State is obligated to prevent, investigate and punish human rights violations, nor all the cases in which the State might be found responsible for an infringement of those rights. 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 to prevent the violation or to respond to it as required by the Convention. of Velásquez-Rodríguez Case is that even where the State agent acts outside his/her authority or violates the law, the agent must have held himself/herself to be exercising his authority as a State agent. In any other circumstance, the illegal act can only be imputable to a State if there is lack of diligence to prevent or respond to the violation as required by the Charter. The State concluded that where a State agent is on a frolicking of his own and commits acts considered of violation of rights, such acts will not be imputed to the 13