52 Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-third session if the injuries originated, for example, in requisitions or forced contributions demanded ... by revolutionaries before their final success, or if they were caused ... by offences committed by successful revolutionary forces, the responsibility of the State ... cannot be denied.179 (13) The possibility of holding the State responsible for the conduct of a successful insurrectional movement was brought out in the request for information addressed to Governments by the Preparatory Committee for the 1930 Hague Conference. On the basis of replies received from a number of Governments, the Preparatory Committee drew up the following Basis of Discussion: “A State is responsible for damage caused to foreigners by an insurrectionist party which has been successful and has become the Government to the same degree as it is responsible for damage caused by acts of the Government de jure or its officials or troops.” 180 Although the proposition was never discussed, it may be considered to reflect the rule of attribution now contained in paragraph 2. (14) More recent decisions and practice do not, on the whole, give any reason to doubt the propositions contained in article 10. In one case, the Supreme Court of Namibia went even further in accepting responsibility for “anything done” by the predecessor administration of South Africa.181 (15) Exceptional cases may occur where the State was in a position to adopt measures of vigilance, prevention or punishment in respect of the movement’s conduct but improperly failed to do so. This possibility is preserved by paragraph 3 of article 10, which provides that the attribution rules of paragraphs 1 and 2 are without prejudice to the attribution to a State of any conduct, however related to that of the movement concerned, which is to be considered an act of that State by virtue of other provisions in chapter II. The term “however related to that of the movement concerned” is intended to have a broad meaning. Thus, the failure by a State to take available steps to protect the premises of diplomatic missions, threatened from attack by an insurrectional movement, is clearly conduct attributable to the State and is preserved by paragraph 3. (16) A further possibility is that the insurrectional movement may itself be held responsible for its own conduct under international law, for example for a breach of international humanitarian law committed by its forces. The topic of the international responsibility of unsuccessful insurrectional or other movements, however, falls outside the scope of the present articles, which are concerned only with the responsibility of States. 179 Ibid., vol. V (Sales No. 1952.V.3), p. 327, at p. 353 (1928). League of Nations, Conference for the Codification of International Law, Bases of Discussion … (see footnote 88 above), pp. 108 and 116; and Basis of discussion No. 22 (c), ibid., p. 118; reproduced in Yearbook ... 1956, vol. II, p. 223, at p. 224, document A/CN.4/96. 181 Guided in particular by a constitutional provision, the Supreme Court of Namibia held that “the new government inherits responsibility for the acts committed by the previous organs of the State”, Minister of Defence, Namibia v. Mwandinghi, South African Law Reports, 1992 (2), p. 355, at p. 360; and ILR, vol. 91, p. 341, at p. 361. See, on the other hand, 44123 Ontario Ltd. v. Crispus Kiyonga and Others, 11 Kampala Law Reports 14, pp. 20–21 (1992); and ILR, vol. 103, p. 259, at p. 266 (High Court, Uganda). 180 Article 11. Conduct acknowledged and adopted by a State as its own Conduct which is not attributable to a State under the preceding articles shall nevertheless be considered an act of that State under international law if and to the extent that the State acknowledges and adopts the conduct in question as its own. Commentary (1) All the bases for attribution covered in chapter II, with the exception of the conduct of insurrectional or other movements under article 10, assume that the status of the person or body as a State organ, or its mandate to act on behalf of the State, are established at the time of the alleged wrongful act. Article 11, by contrast, provides for the attribution to a State of conduct that was not or may not have been attributable to it at the time of commission, but which is subsequently acknowledged and adopted by the State as its own. (2) In many cases, the conduct which is acknowledged and adopted by a State will be that of private persons or entities. The general principle, drawn from State practice and international judicial decisions, is that the conduct of a person or group of persons not acting on behalf of the State is not considered as an act of the State under international law. This conclusion holds irrespective of the circumstances in which the private person acts and of the interests affected by the person’s conduct. (3) Thus, like article 10, article 11 is based on the principle that purely private conduct cannot as such be attributed to a State. But it recognizes “nevertheless” that conduct is to be considered as an act of a State “if and to the extent that the State acknowledges and adopts the conduct in question as its own”. Instances of the application of the principle can be found in judicial decisions and State practice. For example, in the Lighthouses arbitration, a tribunal held Greece liable for the breach of a concession agreement initiated by Crete at a period when the latter was an autonomous territory of the Ottoman Empire, partly on the basis that the breach had been “endorsed by [Greece] as if it had been a regular transaction … and eventually continued by her, even after the acquisition of territorial sovereignty over the island”.182 In the context of State succession, it is unclear whether a new State succeeds to any State responsibility of the predecessor State with respect to its territory.183 However, if the successor State, faced with a continuing wrongful act on its territory, endorses and continues that situation, the inference may readily be drawn that it has assumed responsibility for it. (4) Outside the context of State succession, the United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran case provides a further example of subsequent adoption by a 182 Affaire relative à la concession des phares de l’Empire ottoman, UNRIAA, vol. XII (Sales No. 63.V.3), p. 155, at p. 198 (1956). 183 The matter is reserved by article 39 of the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties (hereinafter “the 1978 Vienna Convention”).