referring expressly to the Draft Articles". We endorse the above provision and state that on our part also same is applicable to the instant case. Having stated that the official actions of individuals and units of the state are the responsibility of state party in actions for violation of International Human Rights, can it be said that the actions of the said police constables are the actions of the state of Ghana despite the denunciation of the acts. 33. In the authorities above, it was stressed that 'responsibility can lie for omissions that constitutes a breach of international obligation, as well as for commissions." In the German settlers in Poland case The Permanent Court of International Justice, stated that, 'States can only act by and through their agents and representatives. It has been a central element in the law of State responsibility that, where organs of State (such as government departments, or its courts), or individuals or groups in the employment of the State (the Police, the Army, Customs Officers) act in a way that violates international law, their conduct is attributed to the State, and the State is internationally responsible for such conduct". 34. We endorse the above authorities because they are apt to the facts of this case. In the instant case the two policemen were the servants of the defendants at the time the acts were committed and the rights of the Applicants were violated by their action. Another dimension is whether even in a criminal act by state officials the State would be liable in damages. We hold that the State will be responsible even if it did not specifically order the conduct concerning its servants and even if its servants acted in ways clearly beyond what they were ordered to do. This leads this Court to look at the observations by Publicists and the application of the principles of international law as stated in 'Public International Law' by Gideon Boas page 280 cap 7 with the caption, State Responsibility' where it states: 14