95. The obligation of diligence consists, for a party to a contract, in placing at the disposal of the other party all the available resources without however guaranteeing the result that the said resources would produce. Thus, in the context of this obligation, the debtor undertakes to deploy all efforts to provide the creditor with a given requirement, but without being able to guarantee it. It is the case of the doctor who undertakes to provide all the necessary care to his patient without however being able to guarantee the recovery of the said patient. 96. The assertion of such a responsibility has the effect of compelling the party on whom reposes the obligation of diligence to pay compensation for the damages it may have caused in the execution of this obligation. This compensation takes the form of a conviction for the payment of damages with interest, that is to say an obligation to pay a sum of money. It is in this context that the notion of obligations arises, to which the Respondent State alludes in talking about its resources on the one hand and its corollary, the obligations of result, on the other. 97. On the contrary, the obligation of result pre-supposes the commitment of the debtor to obtain a specific result. Thus, in the context of this obligation, the transporter of a traveller undertakes to carry the passenger from point A to point B safe and sound. 98. Pertaining to evidence, the evidence of a fault is only required from the complainant in the case of obligations of diligence since the complainant has to prove that the debtor has not deployed all the required efforts to obtain the success of the undertaking. On the other hand, the creditor of an obligation of result is exempted from providing such evidence. In effect, all he has to do is to establish that the promised result has not been obtained; the debtor can only obtain release from his responsibility by establishing that the non-execution is due to circumstances beyond his control which cannot be attributed to him but to force majeure. The force majeure represents a foreign event which 24 is both unforeseeable and uncontrollable which is at the root of an injury 99. Generally, in international law, the notion of obligation of diligence and that of result emanate from the interpretation of Articles 20 and 21 of the draft articles of the International Law Commission (ILC) pertaining to the responsibilities of States. It must be noted that the comments from these two articles were adopted by the ILC which caused the latter to make a distinction between the violation of international obligations referred to as “behaviour” or “diligence” and the violation of obligations 25 otherwise called “ result” 100. Under Article 20 of the draft Articles of the ILC entitled “Violation of an international obligation requiring the adoption of a predetermined specific behaviour when the behaviour of the said State is at variance with the behaviour specified under that obligation”. 101. In respect of Article 21 of the draft ILC Articles which is entitled “Violation of an international obligation requiring the attainment of a specific result, the provision stipulates that: “1) A State is in violation of an obligation requiting it to choose a determined result if by the behaviour exhibited, the State does not ensure the realisation of the expected result required from it under the terms of that obligation. 2) If the behaviour of the State has created a situation that does not conform to the result required from it by the international obligation, but that it emerges from the obligation that this result or an equivalent result can all the same be achieved by the subsequent behaviour of the State, then a violation of the obligation occurs only when the State also fails by its subsequent behaviour to achieve the result expected from her by that obligation”. 102. Thus, if the obligation of diligence requires that the State adopts specific behaviours or actions to attain specific results, then under obligation of result, the State enjoys the freedom of choice and action to achieve the result required by that obligation” [/quote] 26 103. Consequently, in the case Colozza vs Italy , the European Court of Human Rights declared and rendered judgement that “ the contracting States (parties) enjoy very wide discretion in terms of the calculation of the choices and means to ensure that their legal systems are in keeping with the provisions of Article 6 paragraph 1 (Art 6-1) in this field. The task of the Court is not to indicate to the States these means, but to determine if the result required by the Convention had been achieved”. 27 104. Similarly, in the De Cubber vs Belgium , the European Court of Human Rights observed that its task was to determine if the contracting States achieved the result required by the European Convention and that its task was not to point out specifically the means used to arrive at that result.