registration in the Land Register makes this right opposable to third parties, including the State. 91. Regarding the national procedures for buying real estate, the Complainant describes the successive stages involved in the national laws laying down the conditions for obtaining land certificates. She submits that she successively contacted a notary, the Land Registrar and the Divisional Head of Service of Land and Surveys who are all authorities of the Respondent State before whom she produced all the required information and documents. The Complainant submits that having met the legal requirements before the authorities recognised by the law to cross-check and double-check the authenticity of the procedure for obtaining land certificates, and the said authorities having found that the land was not subject to any opposition, the land certificate constitutes an authentic document that is opposable to both the State and to third parties. The Complainant further submits that she presumed to be in possession of an unquestionable land certificate since it was obtained in strict conformity with the legal requirements. 92. The Complainant further avers that the alleged violations were committed as a result of the Respondent State’s failure in its obligations to respect, protect, promote and enforce her right to property. She argues that the State failed in its obligation to respect the said right as a result of the intervention of its employees who prevented the enjoyment of the property and dispossessed her of her property, without any grounds of public use or legal grounds. Regarding the violation of the obligation to protect, the Complainant submits that it is as a result of the fact that the State did not prevent third parties and its own employees from evicting her from the land and destroying her property and installations. The Complainant argues that since the State has authority over land and having issued an authentic and inviolable land certificate, it had the obligation to protect the conferred right to property. She contends that having failed to ensure such protection, the State also failed to conduct an investigation towards punishing the perpetrators whereas she had brought the matter to the attention of the competent authorities. 93. Regarding the obligation to promote, the Complainant states that this obligation was not met as a result of the Respondent State’s incapability to secure her right. Regarding the enforcement of her right to property, she maintains that even though the State has a law governing the issuance of land certificates, it has however failed to comply with Article 1 of the African Charter which imposes an obligation of result and not of means. 94. The Complainant submits that the State has not only violated her ownership right in terms of property but also other related rights and privileges, 20