178. The Respondent State noted on the other hand that for it to be held responsible, the violations must be inflicted .. by or at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.63 179. Citing the UN Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra - Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions,64 the State noted that generally extra-judicial executions are attributable to State organs and officials in the ordinary exercise of governance. This is supported by the U.N. Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions.65 The introductory paragraph of the 1991 United Nations Manual provides that such executions include: (a) political assassinations; (b) deaths resulting from torture or ill-treatment in prison or detention; (c) death resulting from enforced "disappearances"; (d) deaths resulting from the excessive use of force by law-enforcement personnel; (e) executions without due process; and (f) acts of genocide. The six circumstances of extra-judicial executions mentioned in the UN Manual point to the fact that under international law, such executions can only be carried out by the State or through its agents or acquiescence. 180. The UN Fact Sheet No.11 provides that the "situations of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary execution" which the Special Rapporteur is requested to examine include all acts and omissions of State representatives that constitute a violation of the general recognition of the right to life embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.66 This view is also supported by the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms which stresses that the prime responsibility and duty to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms lie with the State.67 This is in line with Article 1 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which provides that " the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity...". 181. The above international human rights instruments support the State's argument that extra-judicial executions and torture are caused by the State or through its agents or acquiescence. In the present communication, the Complainant alleges that killings were committed by ZANU (PF) supporters and war veterans. The Respondent State maintains that to fulfil its obligations under international law, it investigated allegations of suspected deaths and the perpetrators were charged with the criminal law crime of murder. Some of them have been found guilty while some are still being prosecuted. The Complainant does not dispute the fact that such investigations had been undertaken but argue they were not effective. From the above reasoning, the Respondent State cannot be liable for extrajudicial executions as alleged by the Complainants, and accordingly cannot be said to have violated Article 4 of the African Charter. 182. In the specific case of the killing of Chiminya and Makiba, the Respondent State in its oral submission at the 35th Ordinary Session of the African stated that investigations into the murder was initiated immediately and three of the alleged perpetrators, Webster Gwamba, Bernard Makuwe and Morris Kainosi were arrested and remanded into custody and the Police was still looking for Mr. Mwale. The State noted further that the three accused have been charged and are awaiting trial. Based on the fact that the matter is still before the Courts in Zimbabwe, the African Commission decided not to make a decision on it at the admissibility stage. It will therefore not pronounce on it at this stage as well. 183. Regarding the allegation of torture, the complainant did not adduce any evidence to show that State organs were responsible or that the government or State organs connived with ZANU (PF) supporters and War Veterans to inflict pain on others. The State can also not be held responsible because it has demonstrated that it investigated allegations brought to its attention. Under international law, responsibility can lie directly to the individuals and non-state actors for their acts. 184. Regarding allegations of arbitrary detention, the Complainant argues that the victims were abducted or kidnapped and detained by war veterans and ZANU (PF) supporters. Article 6 of the African Charter provides for the right to liberty and protection from arbitrary detention. 185. Under international law, arbitrary detention or arrest refers to detention that is not consistent with due process of the law established by the State or international human rights norms. The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention in its opinion on the arbitrary detention of Dr. Wang in Case No 10/200368 declared that 23