public authority constitutes an act imputable to the State, which assumes responsibility in the terms
provided by the Convention.
165. The first obligation assumed by the States Parties under Article 1 (1) is "to respect the rights and
freedoms" recognized by the Convention. The exercise of public authority has certain limits which derive
from the fact that human rights are inherent attributes of human dignity and are, therefore, superior to the
power of the State. On another occasion, this court stated:
The protection of human rights, particularly the civil and political rights set forth in the Convention, is in
effect based on the affirmation of the existence of certain inviolable attributes of the individual that cannot
be egitimately restricted through the exercise of governmental power. There are individual domains that are
beyond the reach of the State or to which the State has but limited access. Thus, the protection of human
rights must necessarily comprise the concept of the restriction of the exercise of state power (The Word
"Laws" in Article 30 of the American Convention on Human Rights, Advisory Opinion OC-6/86 of May
9, 1986. Series A No. 6, para 21).
166. The second obligation of the States Parties is to "ensure" the free and full exercise of the rights
recognized by the Convention to every person subject to its jurisdiction. This obligation implies the duty of
States Parties to organize the governmental apparatus and, in general, all the structures through which
public power is exercised, so that they are capable of juridically ensuring the free and full enjoyment of
human rights. As a consequence of this obligation, the States must prevent, investigate and punish any
violation of the rights recognized by the Convention and, moreover, if possible attempt to restore the right
violated and provide compensation as warranted for damages resulting from the violation.
167. The obligation to ensure the free and full exercise of human rights is not fulfilled by the existence of a
legal system designed to make it possible to comply with this obligation --it also requires the government to
conduct itself so as to effectively ensure the free and full exercise of human rights.
7 Communication 74/92 - Commission Nationale des Droits de l'Homme et des Libertes/Chad.
8 Consolidated communication 147/95 and 149/96 - Sir Dawda K. Jawara/The Gambia
9 Communication 211/98 - Legal Resources Foundation/Zambia.
10 Communication 54/91, 61/91, 98/93, 164/97, 196/97, 210/98 - Malawi African Association, Amnesty
International, Ms Sarr Diop, UIADH and RADDHO, Collectif des veuves et ayants droit, AMDH/ Mauritania
11 Communication 211/98 - Legal Resources Foundation/Zambia.
12 Chavunduka & anor v Commissioner of Police 2000(1) ZLR 418 (S).
13 Communication 218/98- Civil Liberties Organisation, Legal Defence Centre, Legal Defence & Assistance
Project/Nigeria; Communication 225/98 - HURILAWS/Nigeria; See also Article 61 of the African Charter.
14 Communication 223/98 - Forum of Conscience/Sierra Leone.
15 See Velásquez-Rodríguez Case, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Judgment of 29 July 1988
paragraphs 170
× 170. This conclusion is independent of whether the organ or official has contravened provisions of
internal law or overstepped the limits of his authority: under international law a State is responsible for the
acts of its agents undertaken in their official capacity and for their omissions, even when those agents act
outside the sphere of their authority or violate internal law.
, 177
× 177. In certain circumstances, it may be difficult to investigate acts that violate an individual's rights. The
duty to investigate, like the duty to prevent, is not breached merely because the investigation does not
produce a satisfactory result. Nevertheless, it must be undertaken in a serious manner and not as a mere
formality preordained to be ineffective. An investigation must have an objective and be assumed by the
31