State. 115. The State further noted that whilst Article 1 extends the obligation of a State Party to investigate acts of violation of rights guaranteed under the Charter, the duty to investigate, such as the duty to prevent, is not breached merely because the investigation does not produce a satisfactory result, admitting however, the investigations must be undertaken in a serious manner and not as a mere formality. Referring to the Rodriguez Case, the State noted that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights was clear to what extent a State may become responsible for cases not intentionally or directly imputable to the State. The Court observed that: an illegal act which violates human rights and which is initially not directly imputable to a state (for example, because it is an 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. 116. The State emphasised that there is a clear distinction between the Government of Zimbabwe and ZANU (PF). The State maintained that whilst ZANU (PF) is the ruling party, the actions of the party cannot be attributed to the Government of Zimbabwe and added further that the actions of the war veterans cannot equally, be attributed to the Government of Zimbabwe. The Respondent State acknowledged that President Mugabe is the Patron of the war veterans, but that did not in any way imply that war veterans were controlled by the Government of Zimbabwe. ZANU (PF) is a political party and the war veterans (either individually or as an association) are not State organs. Therefore, according to the State, their illegal acts cannot be imputable to the Government of Zimbabwe. Neither can it be said that the violence alluded to in the Communication was an orchestrated policy of the Government of Zimbabwe. Submissions by Complainant in this regard are palpably untenable and should be disregarded, submitted the State. 117. The State concluded by noting that it was improper to impose liability on the Government of Zimbabwe, or any Government for that matter, for actions of persons or organisations who were not part of the State machinery. The State's liability in such a situation should only attach where the State fails to exercise the duty to protect the rights, welfare and interests of the people diligently or acts in complicity with such persons. 118. With regards to allegations of violation of Article 4, the right to life, the State noted that extra-judicial, arbitrary or summary executions are, under international law, generally attributable to State organs and officials in the ordinary exercise of governance. They entail, among other things, disregard of due process of the law by State entities or officials. The State referred to the Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra - Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions Recommended by Economic and Social Council Resolution 1989/65 of 24 May 1989 and the U.N. Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions (U.N. Doc. G/ST/CS DHA/12 (1991) which provide for definitions of extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions. 119. The State noted further that apart from the case of Chiminya and Mabika out of the alleged seventy four (74) "extra-judicial executions", the Complainant did not give an account of how the others happened. Therefore, the Complainant's naked allegations did not assist in determining whether or not the alleged deaths actually happened. To buttress this point, the State argued that although Complainant alleged that some of the victims were severely assaulted with objects such as "sticks, sjamoks, open hands, axe handles and hosepipes", not a single medical report was produced in support of such severe assaults. The State called on the Commission to distinguish the present Communication from Communications such as Amnesty International/Sudan 48/90, Comite Loosli Bachelard/Sudan 50/91, Lawyers Committee for Human Rights/Sudan 52/91 and Association of Members of the Episcopal Conference of East Africa/Sudan 89/93 where the communication was supported with not only personal accounts but also medical testimonies. The State concluded that throughout the Communication, there was evidence that the Complainant did not take steps to ascertain what had happened to the matters that were reported to the police. 120. As regards Joseph Mwale, who was alleged to have killed Chiminya and Mabika, and who was alleged to be a member of the Central Intelligent Organisation, the Respondent State submitted that his actions could not be imputed to the State as the alleged acts could not be said to have been committed in his official capacity, in other words, using their authority in the normal course of their duty. The death of Chiminya and Mabika, according to the State, was a case of an allegedly intentional and illicit deprivation of another's life which can and must be recognised and addressed in terms of the criminal law as murder. 121. Furthermore, the Respondent State submitted that the alleged or perceived inaction of the Police in relation to all the alleged violations cannot be said to be a contravention of the rights guaranteed by the Charter and in particular Article 1. The State insisted that the Police were deployed to deal with cases of violence and unrest, and to this end, suspects were arrested, investigations conducted and prosecutions 14