wrongful acts. To be liable under this body of rules, it must be shown that the impugned acts are: a) attributable to the Respondent state; and b) that the acts violate international legal obligations binding on the Respondent State at the time of their commission. One can hardly dispute that the publication by the Minister of Education infringes various human right norms in the African Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other human right instruments that are binding on Sierra Leone. The Minister's statement published in the media is a clear evidence of prima facie violations of the rights to education and nondiscrimination of the affected pregnant girls. Thus, the question whether the said statement violates Sierra Leone's extant international obligations, particularly in the area of human rights, can be answered in the affirmative, at least tentatively. That leaves the first question of whether the Minister's statement is attributable or imputable to the Republic of Sierra Leone. Generally, for a conduct (either an act or omission) to be attributable to a state, it must meet the threshold of being an “act of the state” as demanded by act of state doctrine. This test is satisfied if the conduct was perpetrated by an organ, agency, or other instrumentality of the state regardless of whether it was performing executive, legislative or judicial functions, and again, regardless of its position in the constitutional structure of the state. It also does not matter that in the particular instance, the organ, agenéy or instrumentality of the state acted beyond the scope of its authority or in disregard of instructions. What this means, from the foregoing, is that acts of state officials done in their official capacity are “acts of the state” and therefore do form the basis of 18,