v. That the present communication provides the Commission with the opportunity to a. clarify the meaning and scope of the « positive actions » that the States are required to carry out in order to conform with the conditions of the African Charter, and this, by responding to the affirmation made by the Cameroonian Authorities and according to which the implementation of «all the legal, technical, human and material means at their disposal to control the postelectoral events of Bamenda in 1992 frees them from the obligation of means which is incumbent upon them ». vi. That the African Charter really and truly imposes an obligation of result and not one of diligence on the States Parties, of guaranteeing to the victims of the October 1992 events the enjoyment and effective exercise of the rights which it proclaims and the lack of respect for which gives rise to a right to compensation for the victims or their dependents and implies, for the Cameroonian State, the responsibility to compensate and the freedom to act against the perpetrator or perpetrators of the violation. vii. That, in effect, where, the Commission has not had numerous opportunities to make 12 a ruling on the exact content of Article 1 of the Charter , it has nonetheless pointed out that this Article is the basis of the rights recognized by the African Charter in so far as it confers on it « the legally binding nature which is generally attributed to international Treaties of this nature and that any violation of one of its provisions would automatically represent a violation ofArticle 13 1». Pertaining to the violation ofArticles 2, 4, 7 and 14 of the African Charter 77. Concerning the violation of Articles 2, 4, 7 and 14 the complainants appear to link it to the importance that Article 1represents in the present case, since according to the complainants, Article 1 is « the only one which defines the scope of the legal obligations contracted by the States Parties to the Charter, thereby allowing correct interpretation of the obligations contained in the other provisions of the Continental Treaty ». Thus, the complainants contend that if taken in isolation, Article 1 of the Charter commits the State Parties to taking all the necessary legislative measures allowing the effective protection of the rights and liberties contained in the Charter, that is to say, of averting or at least of minimizing all risks of violating the exercise or enjoyment of these rights, and in combination with the other relevant provisions of the Charter, the obligation of averting violations imposes on the States Parties the obligations of: • • • Taking preventive measures; Taking measures so that the enjoyment and exercise of the rights are not hindered by measures 14 of seizure or of expropriation which are not dictated by the satisfaction of a general interest or a public necessity or even the looting or the destruction of the property of natural persons or legal entities; Putting in place legislation which makes it possible to avert, repress and punish violations to life, but also « to take preventive measures of a practical nature to protect the individual whose life 15 is threatened by the actions of another». 78. Thus, the complainants contend : 1. That the above mentioned articles had been violated by the State of Cameroon since the latter had failed in its obligation to take adequate preventive measures if not to avert or prevent the events in question, at least to reduce them to zero. To support this reasoning, the complainants emphasize that the Cameroonian authorities knew that the Bamenda events were going to take