31. With the greatest respect, this Court is not persuaded by this specific conclusion. In our judgment, Article 5 of the ILC Articles is couched in very clear and unambiguous terms. Empowerment by law is most clearly a pre-requisite to State responsibility under that Article. Indeed, paragraph 7 of the commentary to Article 5 aptly reinforces this position in the following terms: “The formulation of article 5 clearly limits it to entities which are empowered by internal law to exercise governmental authority. This is to be distinguished from situations where an entity acts under the direction or control of the State, which are covered by article 8, and those where an entity or group seizes power in the absence of State organs but in situations where the exercise of governmental authority is called for: these are dealt with in article 9. … On the other hand, article 5 does not extend to cover, for example, situations where internal law authorizes or justifies certain conduct by way of self-help or self-defence; i.e. where it confers powers upon or authorizes conduct by citizens or residents generally. The internal law in question must specifically authorize the conduct as involving the exercise of public authority; it is not enough that it permits activity as part of the general regulation of the affairs of the community. It is accordingly a narrow category.” (Our emphasis) 32. The issue of empowerment is a question of fact that must be duly established. In the instant case, the internal laws of Rwanda are pivotal to a determination of whether or not the Kigali City Abandoned Property Management Commission was empowered to exercise a function that would otherwise have been a governmental function. REFERENCE No. 10 OF 2013 Page 17