amounts to arbitrary deprivation of life.”30The right to life is therefore the foundational, or bedrock human right.31 139. International human rights law therefore requires the Respondent State to both respect and ensure the right to life. The Respondent State has an obligation to prevent the wrongful deaths of its citizens. The Respondent State has to ensure that its organs respect the life of persons within its jurisdiction. The African Commission is of the view that the Respondent State AC HP R failed in its obligation of respecting and ensuring the right to life of Beavan Tatenda Kazangachire, Munyaradzi Never Chitsenga and Batanai Hadzisi. Their death was as a result of the use of excessive and wrongful force by the law enforcement agents of the Respondent State. Accordingly, the African Commission finds for the Complainant that the Respondent State has violated Article 4 of the African Charter. 140. In considering the alleged violation of Article 1, the African Commission notes its decision in Jawara v The Gambia32 where it held that “Article 1 gives the Charter the legally binding character always attributed to international treaties of this sort. Therefore a violation of any provision of the Charter automatically means a violation of Article 1.” 141. In the case of Commission Nationale des Droits de l’homme et des Libertes v Chad,33 the African Commission stated that “the Charter specifies in article 1 that the state parties shall not only recognize the rights, duties and freedoms adopted by the Charter, but they should also undertake…measures to give effect to them. In other words, if a state neglects to ensure the rights in the 30 31 Id, para 19 General Comments Nos. 6 and 14 to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, see document HRI/GEN/1/Rev.8, pp. 166 and 178, respectively, para. 1 32 Communications 147/95, 149/96, para 46 33 Communication 74/92, para 20 39