Adopted at its 39th Ordinary Session held from 11th - 15th May 2006 in Banjul, The Gambia. 1 Consolidated communication - Sir Dawda K. Jawara/The Gambia. 2 Communication 221/98 Alfred B. Cudjoe/Ghana. 3 Communications 54/91, 61/91, 98/93, 164/97 & 196/97, 210/98 Malawi African Association, Amnesty International, Ms Sarr Diop, UIADH and RADDHO, Collectif des veuves et ayants droit, AMDH/ Mauritania. 4 Communications 54/91, 61/91, 98/93, 164/97 & 196/97, 210/98 Malawi African Association, Amnesty International, Ms Sarr Diop, UIADH and RADDHO, Collectif des veuves et ayants droit, AMDH/ Mauritania. See also Communications 48/90, 50/91, 52/91, 89/93, Amnesty International, Comité Loosli Bachelard, Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, Association of Members of the Episcopal Conference of East Africa/Sudan. 5 Communication 204/97 - Mouvement Burkinabe des Droits de l'Homme et des Peuples/Burkina Faso and Communication 74/92 - Commission Nationale des Droits de l'Homme et des Libertes/Chad. 6 See Velásquez-Rodríguez Case, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Judgment of 29 July 1988 paragraphs 160 - 167. × 160. This requires the Court to examine the conditions under which a particular act, which violates one of the rights recognized by the Convention, can be imputed to a State Party thereby establishing its international responsibility. 161. Article 1 (1) of the Convention provides: Article 1. Obligation to Respect Rights 1. The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition. 162. This article specifies the obligation assumed by the States Parties in relation to each of the rights protected. Each claim alleging that one of those rights has been infringed necessarily implies that Article 1 (1) of the Convention has also been violated. 163. The Commission did not specifically allege the violation of Article 1 (1) of the Convention, but that does not preclude the Court from applying it. The precept contained therein constitutes the generic basis of the protection of the rights recognized by the Convention and would be applicable, in any case, by virtue of a general principle of law, iura novit curia, on which international jurisprudence has repeatedly relied and under which a court has the power and the duty to apply the juridical provisions relevant to a proceeding, even when the parties do not expressly invoke them ("Lotus", Judgment No. 9, 1927, P.C.I.J., Series A No. 10, p. 31 and Eur. Court H.R., Handyside Case, Judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A No. 24, para. 41). 164. Article 1 (1) is essential in determining whether a violation of the human rights recognized by the Convention can be imputed to a State Party. In effect, that article charges the States Parties with the fundamental duty to respect and guarantee the rights recognized in the Convention. Any impairment of those rights which can be attributed under the rules of international law to the action or omission of any 30