constitute a violation, even if the State or its agents are not the immediate cause of the violation.41 175. The Complainants state that the Respondent State ratified the African Charter on 15 June 1998 and is obligated to give effect to the rights guaranteed therein without discrimination. They argue that as stated by the Commission in Purohit and Moore/The Gambia,42 „when a state ratifies the African Charter it is obligated to uphold the fundamental rights contained therein. Otherwise if the reverse were true, the significance of ratifying a human rights treaty would be seriously defeated.‟ 176. They argue that by failing to respect the Victim‟s right to a fair and speedy trial guaranteed in Article 7 of the African Charter, the Respondent State is in violation of Articles 1 and 2 of the African Charter. They further state that a violation of any provision of the African Charter automatically means a violation of Article 1.43 177. The African Commission notes that in its submission of the Merits, the Respondent State did not specifically address the allegations made against it that it had violated Articles 1 and 2 of the African Charter. 178. According to the African Commission's long-standing practice, in cases of human rights violations, the burden of proof rests on the government (See, ACHPR/59/91, ACHPR/60/91, ACHPR/64/92, 68/92, 78/92, ACHPR/87/93, ACHPR/101/93). 44 If the government provides no evidence to contradict an allegation of human rights violation made against it, the Commission will take it as proven, or at the least probable or plausible. On the information available, the Commission considers that there was a violation of Articles 1 and 2 the African Charter. 179. To reiterate in the instant matter if the government provides no evidence to contradict an allegation of human rights violation made against it, the African Commission will take it as proven, or at the least probable or plausible. This principle conforms with the practice of other international human rights adjudicatory bodies and the African Commission‟s duty to protect human rights. Since the Respondent State did not respond to the allegations, the African Commission must, regrettably, come to a conclusion based on the facts and opinions submitted by the Complainants. 41 See Communication 74/92, Commission Nationale des Droits de L’Homme et des Libertes/Chad, paragraph 20. 42 See Communication 241/2001, Purohit Moore v. The Gambia, paragraph 43. 43 Communications 147/95 and 149/96, Sir Dawda Jawara/The Gambia, as in n 14 above. 44 (See, ACHPR/59/91, ACHPR/60/91, ACHPR/64/92, 68/92, 78/92, ACHPR/87/93, ACHPR/101/93). 40