Internationally wrongful acts, adopted by the ILC at its 53rd session and submitted to the UN General Assembly provides: 1. Every internationally wrongful act of a state entails the internal responsibility of that State. 2. There is an internationally wrongful act of a state when conduct consisting of an action or omission. (a) Is attributable to the State under internal law and (b) Constitutes a breach of an international obligation of the State The court has held in a plethora of cases that the acts of state agents are attributable to the state. This implies that states will be responsible for acts done without due care and diligence in preventing human right violations and for failure to investigate and punish acts violating those rights. In Amnesty International Vs. Sudan (2000) AHLR 297 (ACHPR), it was held that the Government has a responsibility to protect all people residing under its jurisdiction and even when the Country is going through Civil War, the State must take all possible measures to ensure that its Citizens are treated in accordance with International Humanitarian Law. In Malawi African Association &ors Vs. Mauritania (2000) AHLR 149 at 164165.v.it was held that the duty of due diligence in International law extends to the obligation of a State to prevent human rights violations and where they occur, to investigate, prosecute and punish the perpetrators and failure to do so incurs the responsibility of the State. In the light of the parties’ arguments and the evidence in its possession, the Court notes at the outset that the Respondents failed to conduct an impartial and effective investigation into the matter before demolishing the property. Furthermore as noted above, the Respondent on becoming aware of the demolition did nothing to assuage the victims. There is no evidence placed before this court to show steps taken by the Respondents to investigate the demolition and hold those responsible for it accountable. It is clear that the Respondents agents acted rashly and arbitrarily in the guise of carrying out their duties.it is equally trite that the state is responsible for the acts of its agents in the course of their employment whether authorized or not. Consequently the court holds the Respondent’s responsible for the unwarranted acts of its agents. 25