141. Having established that ZANU (PF) and the Zimbabwe liberation War Veterans Association are non-state actors, the Commission will proceed to deal with the Complainant's major concern - the state's responsibility to effectively protect its citizens from the harmful conduct of third parties (non-state actors), can the violence and atrocities alleged to have been committed by these non-state actors be attributed to the Respondent State or put differently, can the Respondent State be held responsible for the violations committed by these non-State actors? Issue Three: Extent of a State's responsibility for acts of non-state actors 142. Article 1 of the African Charter is essential in determining whether a violation of the human rights recognised by the Charter can be imputed to a State Party or not. That Article charges the States Parties with the fundamental duty to "recognize the rights ... and undertake to adopt legislative or other measures to give effect to them". Any impairment of those rights which can be attributed under the rules of international law to the action or omission of any public authority constitutes an act imputable to the State, which assumes responsibility in the terms provided by the African Charter. 143. Human rights standards do not contain merely limitations on State's authority or organs of State. They also impose positive obligations on States to prevent and sanction private violations of human rights. Indeed, human rights law imposes obligations on States to protect citizens or individuals under their jurisdiction from the harmful acts of others. Thus, an act by a private individual and therefore not directly imputable to a State can generate responsibility of the State, not because of the act itself, but because of the lack of due diligence36 to prevent the violation or for not taking the necessary steps to provide the victims with reparation. 144. The Inter American Court of Human Rights has issued a judgment in the case of Velásquez Rodríguez v Honduras37 which articulates one of the most significant assertions of State responsibility for acts by private individuals. The Court stated that a State "has failed to comply with [its] duty ... when the State allows "private persons or groups to act freely and with impunity to the detriment of the rights recognized by the Convention".38 In the same case, the Inter American Court reaffirmed that States are "obliged to investigate every situation involving a violation of the rights protected by [international law]". Moreover, the Court required Governments to: "take reasonable steps to prevent human rights violations and to use the means at its disposal to carry out a serious investigation of violations committed within its jurisdiction, to identify those responsible, to impose the appropriate punishment and to ensure the victim adequate compensation."39 . This represents an authoritative interpretation of an international standard on State duty. The opinion of the Court could also be applied, by extension, to Article 1 of the African Charter of Human and Peoples' Rights, which requires States parties to "recognize the rights, duties and freedoms enshrined in the Charter and ... undertake to adopt legislative and other measures to give effect to them". Thus, what would otherwise be wholly private conduct is transformed into a constructive act of State, "because of the lack of due diligence to prevent the violation or respond to it as required by the [African Charter]". 145. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Vel?squez Rodriguez Case, thus affirmed 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 to prevent the violation or to respond to it as required by the Convention [or the African Charter]." 40 . 146. The established standard of due diligence in the Rodriguez Case provides a way to measure whether a State has acted with sufficient effort and political will to fulfil its human rights obligations. Under this obligation, States must prevent, investigate and punish acts which impair any of the rights recognised under international human rights law. Moreover, if possible, it must attempt to restore the right violated and provide appropriate compensation for resulting damage. 147. In fact, international41 , and regional42 human rights standards expressly require States to regulate the conduct of non-state actors containing explicit obligations for States to take effective measures to prevent private violations of human rights. The doctrine of due diligence is therefore a way to describe the threshold of action and effort which a State must demonstrate to fulfil its responsibility to protect individuals from abuses of their rights. A failure to exercise due diligence to prevent or remedy violation, or failure to apprehend the individuals committing human rights violations gives rise to State responsibility even if committed by private individuals. This standard developed in regard to the protection of aliens has 18