journalists are not investigated, let alone to prosecute the suspects, the State will be in breach of its obligation under the Treaty and also the A CHPR, as such impunity has the effect of denying the journalists the right to function and thus stifling freedom of expression. These two claims also succeed on the facts. The last issue is the failure to provide redress. The plaintiffs claim the Defendant has not provided the deceased's family with any redress or compensation for his death and the violation of his freedom of expression; and that the failure to effectively investigate his death and identify the perpetrators has prevented them from seeking compensation themselves. Since February 2005 no attempt has been made to conduct any meaningful investigations into the murder of the deceased. The eyewitnesses spoke about threats to the deceased which the deceased recounted to them in his lifetime. The NIA did not contact these witnesses for any details as to those threats. The personal safety of these witnesses who genuinely - feared for their lives was not guaranteed to enable them assist in the enquiries. The NIA was quick to. put the docket away knowing full well that the eyewitnesses had been scared off. However, we have failed to find a direct linkage of the Defendant to the murder of the deceased. The Defendant is held responsible for the apparent lack of effective investigations into the murder. The linkage of the climate of impunity and abuse of freedom of expression to the murder is also difficult to conclude as there is no iota of evidence as to who carried out the murder. A list of suspects was thrown up most of who are private persons with no connection to the Defendant. So whatever award that will be made will only' take into account the Defendant's failure to conduct effective and impartial investigations into the murder. Decision - For reasons already explained this court upholds the claims by the plaintiffs and grants all reliefs and orders sought except special damages for none was proven in evidence. The court accordingly enters judgment for the plaintiffs against the Defendant. The plaintiffs are awarded compensation in the sum of fifty thousand U.S. dollars (US$50,000.00) for the prejudice 10 suffered as a result of the