44. As rightly noted by the African Commission on Human and Peoples‟ Right, internationally accepted ideas of the various obligations engendered by human rights indicate that all rights, civil and political rights as well as social and economic rights, generate at least four levels of duties for a state that undertakes to adhere to a rights regime, namely the duty to respect, protect, promote and fulfill these rights.8 According to the Commission, „obligation to protect requires States to protect right-holders against other subjects by legislation and provision of effective remedies. This obligation requires the States to prevent human rights violations, investigate human right violations, prosecute and ensure punishment of perpetrators.9 45. As part of obligation to protect, States have a duty to conduct an effective investigation into all cases of violations of human rights such as rape. The African Commission, in affirming this stand, has held that „Failure to investigate effectively, with an outcome that will bring the perpetrators to justice, shows lack of commitment to take appropriate action by the State, especially when this lack of commitment is buttressed by excuses such as lack of sufficient information to carry out a proper investigation. Furthermore, failure to investigate compromises an international responsibility on the part of the Respondent State, both in the case of crimes committed by agents of the State and those committed by private individuals.‟10 46. On this note, as it did in considering the case of Minority rights group international and Sosesclaves on behalf of Said Ould Salem and Yarg Ould Salem v The Government of the Republic of Mauritania, the Committee would also like to address the implementation of the obligations of State Parties envisaged by article 1 of the Children‟s Charter in the context of the requirement of „due diligence‟. In this regard, the Committee reiterates that while discharging their human rights obligations, States are obliged to show due diligence to ensure the full realization of human rights. 11 In the aforementioned case, the Committee noted that States‟ due diligence should be shown in prevention of human rights violations, investigation of violations, prosecution of perpetrators, and ensuring punishment of perpetrators.12 47. In order to prevent violation of human rights, States must identify vulnerable groups prone to abuse and take special measures to prevent violence from occurring. In cases where the violence has already occurred, Governments are required to undertake exhaustive investigation and ensure that commensurate compensation is rewarded to the victims. In the event where the State fails to show due diligence to prevent or investigate violence perpetrated by third parties, it assumes responsibility under international law for non-state actors. In this regard, all organs of the State are required to act in due diligence and a breach caused by any of the organs of the Government in preventing and investigating a violation makes the State responsible under its international human rights obligations. 48. In the case under discussion, the Complainants allege that the Republic of Cameroon and its agents did not carry out any credible investigations into the sexual abuse and rape committed against TFA. Neither was there any form of support provided for her in the aftermath of the rape. On the other hand, the Respondent State alleges that appeal is underway and psychosocial support was given to the child and her family. From the submission of both parties, the Committee understood that five years after commission of crime of rape against TFA, the act of the perpetrator of this crime has not been properly investigated, the person has not been convicted. With regard to provision of psychosocial support to the victim, the Committee notes that, despite the Respondent State‟s submission that TFA has been provided with the necessary psycho-social support, it has not adduced any credible evidence to prove its claims. 8 Social and Economic Rights Action Centre (SERAC) and Another v Nigeria (2001) AHRLR (ACHPR 2001) para 44. 9 SERAC and other V the Government of Nigeria (n10 above) para 46. 10 . Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights & INTERIGHTS vEgypt, Communication No 323/06, ACHPR, para 163. 11 Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v Zimbabwe (2006) AHRLR 128 (ACHPR) 2006 para 146. 12 Minority rights group international and Sos-esclaves on behalf of Said Ould Salem and Yarg Ould Salem V The Government of the Republic of Mauritania, Communication No: 007/Com/003/2015, ACERWC para 52. 9