the Respondent/defendant made the Respondent/defendant responsible for their
actions on the date in question.
40. In both cases of violations of human rights as stated hereinbefore, violation can
occur either through-·action of commission or omission, the State is internationally
accountable, because of its violation of an international obligation to which it is
subject to, by a treaty: a). Either the obligation of the State itself not to violate the
substantive rule recognizing this right; b) or, the obligation to provide due redress,
once the violation has occurred; c) or still, the obligation to investigate and
prosecute the perpetrators of the said violation, when they are private entities. We
hold that even where the third option is accomplished, the State is required to
ensure the payment of reparation or damages in respect of the violation concerned
to the victims.
REPARATION/DAMAGES
41. The next question to consider 1s that of reparation. Are the Applicants/
plaintiffs entitled to be paid reparation based on the assessment for the loss of their
goods? It is well accepted principle of law that Reparation by the definition in
International Human Rights Books denotes 'to repair the damage caused by
wrongdoing. Reparations are a 'victim centric remedy' focused on repairing harm
caused for as a result of wrongdoings. Apart from repairing, reparation also tends
to compensate victims for loss suffered. The Applicants stated that they hired the
services of Mousa Diarra Accounting Firm and Customs Consulting Firm which
evaluated the damages done to the trailer and the value of the stolen goods and
came out with a figure in monetary terms as one hundred and forty-seven million,
-
one hundred and forty-six thousand, five hundred and sixty-four CFA (XOF
147.146, 147) only;
42. The Defendant denied liability or responsibility of the claim and conceded to
no amount of damages. The Latin maxim, ubi jus ibe remedium (for the violation
of every right, there must be a remedy) may be observed in this case even if not in
17