dignified life, with progressive realization of various economic, social and cultural rights which contribute to securing a full and dignified life; violations of such rights may in certain circumstances therefore also entail violations of the right to life. Thus, in some situations, the right to life goes beyond an immediate obligation. The Commission further stated that the State's positive duty towards enjoyment of this right includes protection of individuals and groups from real and immediate risks to their lives caused either by actions or inactions of third parties. 159. In this regard, in the case of Kazeem Aminu v Nigeriai", where the victim was compelled to go into hiding for fear of his life, the Commission found a violation of Article 4, holding that although he was still alive, he was in hiding for fear of his life and it would be a narrow interpretation to this right to think that it can only be violated when one is deprived of it. It further held that"lt' cannot be said that the right to respect for one's life and the dignity of his person, which this article guarantees, would be protected in a state of constant fear and! or threats. In that case, the victim's case could not be heard because of de~~e.~s,pr9ij}u~gateclby the military regime in the Respondent State, which contained an ouster clausetbarring courts from entertaining proceedings relating to those decrees. 160. In the present case, however, the Commission notes that the hardships faced by the Complainants was not because of any law of the Respondent State baring the courts from hearing their case. Therefore, the Commission would examine the allegation of violation of Article 4 by the weight of the evidence in the Complainants' submissions before it, enumerated above'". In so doing, the Commission will stick to its role of ensuriI.'g;Jqat during the actions described by the Complainants, a provision of the African Charter was not violated by the Respondent State'". 161. From the Complainants' submissions, the Commission observes that the fact that their unlawful eviction had the potential to cause a violation of right does not mean that the right in question was violated. There was no concrete evidence adduced to support that the circun~~!ances of the complainants entail violations of the right to life. In this regard, the Co:rnmission relies on its jurisprudence in Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights and Interights'", wherein the victims concerned in the case were sentenced to death through a process that denied them the due process of fair trial and the Commission found that Article 4 was not violated given that the victims had not yet been executed but were still alive, howbeit in a neighboring State. 162. In light of the above, the Commission does not hold the Respondent State to be in violation of Article 4 of the African Charter. ··;t~!liiI1 163. 36 Communication 205/97, Kazeem Aminu v Nigeria, 11 May 2000, para 18. 97 - 99 above 38 See Communication 40/90, Bob Ngozi Njoku/Egypt, para. 61 39 Communication 3341 06, Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights and Interights v Arab Republic of Egypt, para .. 37 See paras 77th Ordinary Session of the ACHPR < 29