molestation. 203. On the issue of investigation, the African Commission will like to make reference to its "Guidelines and Measures for the Prohibition of Torture, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment in Africa (the Robben Island Guidelines)."70 Article 17 of the Robben Island Guidelines provides that States should "Ensure the establishment of readily accessible and fully independent mechanisms to which all persons can bring their allegations of torture and ill-treatment," while Article 19 provides that "Investigations into all allegations of torture or ill-treatment, shall be conducted promptly, impartially and effectively, guided by the UN Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (The Istanbul Protocol)." 204. Furthermore, Article 4(c) of the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, adopted by the General Assembly provides that States should, "Exercise due diligence to prevent, investigate and, in accordance with national legislation, punish acts of violence against women, whether those acts are perpetrated by the State or by private persons."71 205. The African Commission notes the Inter-American Court's decision in Velasquez Rodriguez v. Honduras, which held that: An illegal act which violates human rights and which is initially not directly imputable to a State (for example, because it is the act of a private person or because the person responsible has not been identified) can lead to international responsibility of the State, not because of the act itself but because of the lack of due diligence to prevent the violation or to respond to it as required by the Convention (...). What is decisive is... whether the State has allowed the act to take place without taking measures to prevent it or to punish those responsible...72 206. The acts in the present Communication were illegal and unjustifiable. The African Commission will not belabour on analysing the responsibility of the State under this Article since its reasoning will be the same as Article 18(3) discussed above. Suffice to say that the Respondent State has failed to conduct an effective investigation into the alleged acts of inhuman and degrading treatment and no diligent attempts have been made to hold anyone accountable. 207. The African Commission would also like to accentuate the fact that, being a party to the African Charter, the Respondent State has an obligation to prohibit inhuman and degrading treatment under Article 5 of the Charter. Furthermore, since the Respondent State has acceded to the Convention against Torture,73 it has formally accepted the Convention and is therefore bound by it. Even though Article 13 of the Convention Against Torture does not specifically mention inhuman and degrading treatment, it provides that "...... Steps shall be taken to ensure that the complainant and witnesses are protected against all ill-treatment or intimidation as a consequence of his complaint or any evidence given." 208. The African Commission notes that the Respondent State is also a party to the ICCPR,74 whose Article 7 provides that, "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." The Victims in the present Communication were not only subjected to ill- treatment, but intimidated to withdraw their Complaints. The Respondent State therefore owed an obligation to the Victims to effectively investigate the acts of ill-treatment that impacted on their dignity and punish the perpetrators accordingly. Failing to do so only amounted to an infringement of the rights of the Victims under Article 5 of the Africa Charter and other international instruments that the Respondent State is a party to. 209. From the foregoing, the African Commission concludes a violation of Article 5 of the African Charter by the Respondent State because the acts committed amounted to inhuman treatment and investigations were not conducted. Alleged violation of Article 7(1) (a) and 26 of the African Charter (Right to Fair Trial and Independence of the courts) 210. The Complainants allege a violation of Article 7(1) (a) and 26 of the African Charter respectively. 211. Article 7(1) (a) states that "Every individual has a right to have his cause heard which comprises the right to appeal to competent national organs against acts violating his fundamental rights." 212. Article 26 on its part provides that "State Parties to the present Charter shall have the duty to guarantee the independence of the courts and shall allow the establishment and improvement of appropriate national institutions entrusted with the promotion and protection of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the present Charter". 213. With respect to the alleged violation of Article 7(1) (a) of the African Charter, the Complainants aver that the Victims did not have a right to an impartial and objective investigation, as well as an appeal 19