"The conduct of an organ of the state shall be considered as an act of that state under international law, whether that organ belongs to the constituent, legislature, executive, judicial or other power, whether its functions are of an international or subordinate position in the organization of the state." 31. In the instant case, the two policemen who took away the Applicant's drivers and the two apprentices to an unknown location and abandoned them after which they stole and disposed of all the goods of the Applicant to an unknown person, can be seen as acts attributed to the police services unit of the State of Ghana because it has responsibility to ensure the protection of the Applicant's goods in transit within its territory. Another aspect there from is that the two police constables or officers were in uniforms but according to the Defendant, they were not on official duty. Can their actions (police constables) be attributed to the State of Ghana- the Defendant? In the case of France v Mexico (Caire claim) (1929) 5, Reports of International Arbitral Awards 516, the Tribunal held that public or state officials would usually include, for example, members of the state's executive, legislature, judiciary, armed forces, police and security services and a state responsibility for the actions of these officials even where those actions are committed outside the scope of the officials duties or organs, or that, in so acting, or acted, at least apparently as authorized officials or organs, or that, in so acting, they used powers or measure appropriate to their official character". 32. It is now obvious that generally, the rules of state responsibility described above are applicable to international human rights law - see (1999) 2 Human Rights Quarterly 56, 59, The Hague, (1998) 91, 115, where it was stated that, "the European Court of Human Rights has consistently applied the principles articulated in the ILC Draft Articles on state Responsibility without, however, · 13