supervision of the daaras and bringing to justice the marabouts who force talibés into begging. The State Party has the obligation to protect the rights enshrined in the Charter, which requires measures by the State to ensure that third parties (individuals, institutions, etc.) do not deprive of children’s rights. In this regard the Committee refers to the jurisprudence as established by the African commission on Humans and Peoples’ Rights. In Mouvement Burkinabe des Droits de I'Homme et des Peuples v Burkina Faso, the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights (henceforth, “the Commission”) has set the jurisprudence to the effect that a State Party is responsible for violation of human rights committed by non-state actors as its obligation to ensure the respect for human rights demands it to take all the necessary measures to ensure that non-state actors also respect the rights of children.”* The Commission has also stipulated that failure to prevent violation against children’s rights by non-state actors makes the State internationally responsible.”° An obligation of this type is called an obligation to protect the human rights standard, or, in short, the ‘obligation to protect’. Building on the Commission's jurisprudence, the Committee states that the individual responsibility of non-State actors to respect the rights of children does not relieve the concerned State of its obligations under human rights law to respect, protect and fulfill human rights. 38.In the case at hand, despite the obligation set under the principle of the best Interests of the child, the Committee notes that the Government of Senegal has failed to enforce current national, regional, and international laws and agreements already in place by taking measures, including prosecuting, against perpetrators and abusive religious leaders; and hence the Respondent State has failed its responsibility to protect. 39.Therefore, the Respondent State is responsible under Article 4 of the Charter for not taking necessary administrative and other measures against the daaras, marabouts as well as parents who send their children to the daaras. B. Alleged violation of Article 5 (survival and development) 40. The Complainants in this communication allege that the Respondent State has violated the right to survival and development of the talibés as enshrined in the Charter by not taking any action against the forced begging. The Complainants further state that the forced begging of the talibés causes the disregard of their rights to health care, education, clean and safe environment, and clean water, which in effect are fundamental components of the right to survival and development. Furthermore, the fixed quota imposed on talibés for begging subjects them to an extensive, institutionalized child labour. 41. Considering the allegation made by the Complainants, the Committee carefully analysed the situation of the children in light of the elements of the right to survival and development. Article 5 (1) of the African Children’s Charter provides that every child has 24 Mouvement Burkinabe des Droits de I'Homme et des Peuples v Burkina Faso para 42. See also Commission Nationale des Droits de I'Homme et des Libertes v Chad (2000) AHRLR 66 (ACHPR 2° Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v Zimbabwe Communication 245/2002. 11 1995).