mentioned herein above. It therefore follows that an alleged violation of human rights is admissible and justiciable for adjudication. In the instant case the allegation is on violation of human rights of the applicant's property by the servants' of the defendants- the Republic of Ghana and therefore there is a prima facie case against the defendant and this Court has jurisdiction to determine the dispute herein. State Responsibility 26. There is consensus in the evidence relied upon by both parties, the applicants on one part and the defendant on the other that the two policemen who aecosted the applicants' driver and two apprentices were police uniformed men in the service of the Respondent/defendant at the time the incident occurred and that they took away the goods of the applicants and gave or sold to an unknown person who gave them Forty Ghana Cedis (GHc 40.00), the equivalent of Twenty United States' Dollars (US$ 20.00) in return. It was also common knowledge that the two policemen were traced, prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment for their action. The question at stake is whether the defendant is under international obligation to become responsible for the acts of its citizens who violated the rights of other community citizens within the territory of the defendant. 27. Defendant's argued that the Republic of Ghana should not be held responsible for the action of the two policemen as their actions being criminal in nature same cannot be attributed to the Defendant after the policemen had been prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to 20 years of imprisonment by a court in Ghana-the defendant. According to the defendant their international obligation is discharged upon the prosecution and sentence of the culprits in this case. However, the plaintiffs refuted that argument that even though the policemen had been convicted and sentenced, the issue as to their property which was the subject of the theft remains untried and unsettled. They submitted that the violation of their rights to 10