Communication 341/07 - Equality Now v Ethiopia at liberty, and as it appears, without any conditions that would deter the abductor for repeating his acts. Unsurprisingly, the same perpetrator freely went on to abduct Ms. Negash again, kept her captive for close to a whole month, and raped her. For that longer period, the Respondent State did not come to her rescue, and she had to flee by herself when opportunity presented. 131. These events depict failure on the part of the Respondent State to prevent the abduction and rape of Ms Negash, especially when the Respondent State was at all times aware of the prevalence of the practice, and more so when it was aware of the specific insecurity of Ms Negash and her friends following her first abduction. The Respondent State failed to meet its duty to prevent the violations, and thus failed in its 'duty to protect' which arises from the obligation to adopt measures to give effect to the rights and freedoms under the Charter. 132. In this regard, the Respondent State breached its obligation under Article 1 of the Charter. As a result of that breach, Ms Negash suffered the violations established above. The Respondent State is accordingly internationally liable for failing to prevent the violations. The commendable matrix of initiatives aimed at curbing or eliminating marriage by abduction and rape do not absolve the Respondent State from responsibility because they came after Ms Negash had already fallen victim to the vice. Even if such measures may have been adopted prior to Ms Negash's abduction, they certainly did not yield the protection of Ms Negash from the abduction and rape. 133. In addition to the duty to prevent violations, the duty to protect also entails the duty to provide for a mechanism or take measures for redressing violations when they occur. This is part of the prerequisites for the effective protection of rights and freedoms under the Charter. The actual steps for meeting this duty depend on the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the violations. Among others, the State has the duty to investigate human rights violations that occur within its jurisdiction. Specifically, where the violations are of a criminal nature, the State has the duty to establish criminal responsibility by diligently investigating the violations with a view to ascertaining the facts; identifying the perpetrators; diligently prosecuting the perpetrators, and when convicted to adequately punish them. This is in addition to civil remedies that may be availed to the victim against the perpetrators. 134. In the case at hand, the Respondent State clearly failed in its duty to diligently investigate the acts, identify all those who participated in or facilitated the abduction and rape of Ms Negash, and sanction their acts. Further, whereas Arsi high court adopted the zonal prosecutor's comments that the court a quo had convicted out of emotion, the Arsi high court wilfully disregarded the