this obligation were that of an obligation of diligence the guaranteeing of human rights would be the object of legal insecurity liable to release the State Parties to the human rights protection instruments from any responsibility of effective protection. It is in taking into account the compelling nature of the protection of human rights that the human rights instruments set up control institutions to ensure that the obligations ensuing from these instruments are effectively implemented. Analysis of the Commission with regard to the application of the case in point 113. The legal nature of the obligations outlined in the provisions of Article 1 of the Charter having been clarified, the specific question raised with regard to its application to the case in point is that of knowing whether the State of Cameroon was held by an obligation of diligence or an obligation of result and whether the circumstance of force majeure cited by the Respondent State is fulfilled in order to release the said State from its obligation. 114. The Complainant contends that the State of Cameroon is bound by an obligation of result and consequently is compelled to pay compensation for the injuries suffered by the victims of the 1992 post-electoral events. The State of Cameroon on her part maintains that it was bound by an obligation of diligence as the 1992 events were of an insurrectional character. They are akin to a situation of force majeure which the means employed by the Government could not curtail. Consequently, the State of Cameroon avers that it is free from any liability. 115. Pertaining to the case in point, considering the definition of the legal nature indicated above, the Commission is of the view that the obligations which ensue from Article 1 impose on the State of Cameroon the need to implement all the measures required to produce the result of protecting the individuals living on its territory. The use of the legal, technical, human and material resources that the State of Cameroon claims to have did not produce the expected result, namely that of guaranteeing the protection of human rights. For the post electoral events which gave rise to serious violations against the lives and property of the citizens would not have taken place if the State which, through its investigations knew or should have known about the planning of the said events, had taken the necessary measures to prevent their happening. 116. The events in question having taken place the day after the announcement of the results of the presidential elections, the Authorities only acted four days after the exploding of the hostilities, which promoted the magnitude of the violence and the serious violations of human rights and destruction of property. It has been established that, under the circumstances, the Respondent State has failed in its obligation to protect, considering its lack of diligence and allowed the destruction of lives and property. Furthermore, by invoking the circumstances of force majeure to free itself from its responsibility, the State of Cameroon has implicitly shown that it had been held by an obligation of result in this particular case. 117. In principle, the circumstance of force majeure which assumes the characters of unpredictability, irresistibility and imputability can be invoked if the conditions had been fulfilled at the time of the events. In this case, the said characters of unpredictability, irresistibility and imputability required by a situation of force majeure and which the Respondent Party is invoking cannot be applicable for, according to the Respondent State itself, disturbances of public law and order existed in the country since May 1990 and specifically during the holding of the elections, and that moreover, the 30 th th th nd threats of the 11 , 18 , 19 and 22 October 1992 from the SDF, the Opposition Party and qualified by the Respondent State as « an atmosphere of political intimidation and counter intimidation… » , sufficiently prove the existence of early warning signs of the events in question and consequently the predictability of the events. 118. What is more, the Respondent State had manifested its control of the territory and therefore its ability to stand up to the perpetrators of the post electoral events, by instituting a state of siege a few days after the events in question; had this state of siege been instituted earlier, the events in question would have at least been reduced in scope if not entirely quelled. 119. The obligations prescribed by the African Charter in its Article 1 impose on the States Parties (the State of Cameroon included) the need to put in place all measures liable to produce the result of preventing all violations of the African Charter over their entire territory. These are not only violations which could emanate from the State machinery itself or those from non State actors. The