perpetrators, and ensuring punishment of perpetrators. '® In order to prevent violation of human rights, States must therefore 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.2' As the Inter American Court of Human Rights alluded, a state is in violation of its duties ‘when the State allows private persons or groups to act freely recognized and with impunity to the detriment of the rights by the Convention’? (in this case the African Children’s Charter). 53.In the matter at hand, the Committee’s decision should hence be based on the assessment of the due diligence of the Respondent State. Put differently, the issue is whether or not the Government of Mauritania acted in due diligence in discharging its obligation towards Said and Yarg in terms of prevention, investigation, prosecution, punishment, and remedy by taking legislative and other measures. This begs the question as to what determines if States have acted in due diligence or not. 54. International human rights jurisprudence including that of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights suggests that human rights obligation of States are that of obligation of result, not obligation of diligence.”* Therefore, the Committee is of the view that the due diligence of the Respondent State is assessed by the result it has achieved through the legislative and other measures it has taken in relation to the respective issue. Of course, the Respondent State is not always breaching its obligation whenever there is a violation of rights; rather the State is said to be in violation of international duties when it has failed to undertake an objective and government driven investigation towards the violation.4 If a State is found to be in complicity by overlooking or condoning a certain pattern of violence, the State has not shown due diligence to ensure the realization of human rights.?° Moreover, it is the duty of the Respondent State to prove that it has shown due diligence in implementing the laws or redressing the alleged violation. Even though burden of proof lies on the Applicants, jurisprudence suggests that unless the State proves the "8 Velasquenz Rodriquez v Honduras July 29, 1988, ICtHR (ser c) No 4/1988para 166. "8 Bousroual V Algeria Comm No 1588/2007 CCPR/C/99/D/1588/2007 para 11. 2° Social and Economic Rights Action Center (SERAC) and Another v Nigeria (2001) AHRLR 2001) para 57. 21 UNHRC General Comment no 31 para 4. (ACHPR 2 Velasquenz Rodriquez v Honduras July (n 3 above) para 176. 23 Association of Victims of Post Electoral Violence and Another v Cameroon (2009) AHRLR 47 (ACHPR 2009) para 110, 111 ; De Cubber v Belgium, application 9186/80, European Court of Human Rights, judgment, 26 October 1984 para 35. a Velasquenz Rodriquez v Honduras (n 3 above) 177. °8 Zimbabwe Huma Rights NGO Forum v Zimbabwe (2006) AHRLR 128 (ACHPR) 2006 para 160. 15