freedoms and rights as well as corresponding understood. obligations and duties are 236. The Complainants contend that the Respondent State failed to "address issues of land grabbing and other malpractices involving land 11 as provided for in the Resolution of Conflict Agreement on South Sudan102, and to permanently prevent individual members of the military from abusing their military powers by violently confiscating civilian land. They assert that by such inaction, the Respondent State has not complied with the provisions of Article 25 of the African Charter. 237. In this regard, the Commission recalls its resolve that human rights education is an important prerequisite for the effective implementation of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights and other international human rights instruments'w, and that it had re-iterated this stand point through its Special Mechanisms and in its soft law instruments'v', affirming that States are obligated to include human rights at all stages of education programs, whether/they be public..or private, from kindergarten to tertiary level institutions, and ihithe training of law enforcement officials the medical profession, public officials and others who may be involved in the custody, interrogation or treatment of any individual subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment. 238. Although the Commission admits that the information made available to it does not allow it to establish with certainty that human rights education has not been included in all levels of South Sudan's education system, it does nevertheless identify that at the heart of the various abuses alleged in this Communication, is the question of the domination of the Military Force of South Sudan on not only the Complainants, but also on the State Police and Judiciary. The Commission therefore bears that the stated violations which are a negation of the fundamental principle of the rights stipulated in the African Charter, stem from the inaction of the State towards educating its security officials on human rights and therefore constitute a violation of Article 25 and consequently Article 1 of the African Charter. Decision of the Commission on the Merits 239. In view of the above reasonings and findings, the Commission: (i) Finds that the Respondent State is in violation of Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 7,,10, 12(1&2), 14, 16(1), 18(1&3), 25, and 26 of the African Charter; (ii) Finds no violation of Articles 4, and 8 of the African Charter; (iii) Requests the Respondent State to drop all forged criminal charges against the Complainants' lawyer; (iv) Requests the Respondent State to ensure that the ban on the Lawyer's travel be lifted and that his Passport be returned to him;