146. Moreover, in the situation depicted in the present Communication, the Commission notes that the State has not demonstrated that the Complainant's building was confiscated in the interest of public need or general interest. The deprivation was done without any legal basis as the Respondent State itself had taken so many decisions on the same building in the interest of the Complainant. 147. Without such a justification and adequate compensation determined by an impartial court of competent jurisdiction, the African Commission believes that the actions of the Respondent State are in violation of the right to property guaranteed by Article 14 of the African Charter. 24 148. On the defence of the Respondent State that it was no longer admissible for the interested parties to claim before the court property whose ownership was finally and legally vested in the applicant under Article 227 of the Land Law which provides that the registration certificate is an absolute proof of ownership of buildings, the Commission believes that it is never too late to stop any violation and make reparation for its consequences. 149. The Commission notes that the Respondent State is not contesting the repeal of the Order of 3rd September 1980 as well as the Ordinance of 2nd July, 1974, texts which are the basis for the withdrawal of the disputed building from the inheritance of Mr. Noca. 150. The Commission believes these two repeals fully consolidated the ownership right of Mr. NOCA to the above mentioned building; given that after the repeal, the Order declaring the Noca building an abandoned property became null and void. 151. The Commission, from a legal standpoint, further believes the annulment of the two Orders ought to result either in the annulment of the Title Deed issued on the basis of these two repealed texts, therefore dubiously obtained or the restoration of a duly obtained Title Deed by Mr. Noca. 152. The Commission further argues that the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter are based on procedural rules for their effective enjoyment. The application of these procedural rules giving effect to the enjoyment of those rights should be followed in that, in the present case, their misapplication can deny the fundamental rights, thus leading to the limitation or deprivation thereof. 153. The Commission, based on the two repeals, concludes that there was culpable negligence or a wilful misconduct on the part of the Curator of Title Deeds. 154. The Commission believes that the Title Deed issued on the basis of repealed texts, therefore non-existent, is itself non-existent, and without any effect. 155. The Commission recalls the principle enshrined in Article 1 of the Charter, according to which States Parties not only recognize the rights, obligations and freedoms proclaimed in the Charter, but also undertake to respect them and to take steps for their implementation. In other words, if a State Party cannot ensure respect of the rights contained in the African Charter, this constitutes a violation of the Charter25 . 156. The Commission, in Communication 155/96 on the Ogoni case, adopted an integral approach, notably pertaining to the correlative obligations of the State. The Commission has insisted on the responsibility of States to protect their citizens "not only by enacting appropriate legislation and by applying them effectively, but also by protecting the said citizens from prejudicial activities which may be perpetrated by private parties."26 157. The Commission points out that from its jurisprudence: All rights, civil, political, social and economic, create at least four levels of obligations for a State which undertakes to adopt a system of rights, in particular the responsibility of respecting, protecting, promoting and fulfilling these rights. These obligations are universally applied to all the rights and impose a combination of negative and positive responsibilities. 27 158. The Commission further considers that it is the duty of States to investigate and remedy violations under the general obligations incumbent on them pursuant to Article 1 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights which provides that States must adopt legislative or other measures to implement the rights, duties and freedoms enshrined in the Charter. "They need to prevent acts that violate any right recognized by international human rights law, investigate such acts or punish the perpetrators". 28 159. The Commission further believes that it is the obligation of the Respondent State to respect the right to property. For the African Commission, the right to property set out in Article 14 of the Charter relating to land and housing, implies in particular, the protection from arbitrary deprivation of the enjoyment of property rights, adequate compensation for public acquisition, nationalization or expropriation, peaceful enjoyment of property and protection from arbitrary eviction 29 . 160. This obligation prohibits States from interfering arbitrarily in the enjoyment of property rights. Expropriation without legal grounds or which is not performed in the public interest is an example of breach of the obligation to respect the right to property. 12