1 Cameroon ratified the Charter on 26th June 1989. 2 INTERIGHTS enjoys observer status with the African Commission. 3 Cf. Law No 75/17 of the 08/12/1975 relative to the procedure before the Supreme Court. 4 communication 59/91 : Louis Emgba Mekongo/Cameroon 5 communication 630/1995 : Abdoulaye Mazou/Cameroon 6 See Juan Antonio Carrillo Salcedo<< Article 1>> In the European Human Rights Convention: commentary Article by Article under the direction of Louis Edmond Pettiti, Emmanuel Decaux and Pierre-Henry Imbert, Edition Economica 1999 page 141 << the use of the word in Article 1 recognizes preferably terms such as protect or respect, suggests that the recognized rights have a value erga omnes >> 7 communication 155/96 Action Centre for Economic and Social Rights vs. Nigeria paragraph 44. 8 See Note No. 22 9 General Observation No. 31<< the nature of the legal obligation imposed on the States Parties to the Convention of the United Nations Human Rights Commission, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13. Op. Cit. Paragraph 14 × The requirement under article 2, paragraph 2, to take steps to give effect to the Covenant rights is unqualified and of immediate effect. A failure to comply with this obligation cannot be justified by reference to political, social, cultural or economic considerations within the State. 10 Cf. General Observation No. 31 << the nature of the legal obligation imposed on the States Parties to the Convention >> of the United Nations Human Rights Commission, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13. Op. Cit. Paragraph 7 × 7. Article 2 requires that States Parties adopt legislative, judicial, administrative, educative and other appropriate measures in order to fulfil their legal obligations. The Committee believes that it is important to raise levels of awareness about the Covenant not only among public officials and State agents but also among the population at large. >>. 11 Cf. Communication 74/92 National Human Rights and Liberties Commission against Chad, paragraph [2]5. 12 See communications: No. 74/92; No. 137/94; No. 48/90; No. 50/91 ; No. 52/91; No. 89/93; No. 13[7]/94; No. 15[6]/96; No. 161/97; No. 147/95; No. 149/96; No. 155/96; No. 211/98; No.b223/98 [sic]. 13 Cf. communication No. 147/95 and 149/96 Sir Dawda K. Jawara against The Gambia paragraph 46. 14 Cf. communication No. 140/94, 141/94 et 145/95 Constitutional Rights Project, Civil Liberties Organization and Media Rights Agenda vs. Nigeria paragraph 54 15 1 Cf. CEDH, Affaire Kilic vs. Turkey, 28th March, 2000 paragraph 62 × 62. The Court recalls that the [popup=first sentence of Article 2 § 1]Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. enjoins the State not only to refrain from the intentional and unlawful taking of life, but also to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction (see the L.C.B. v. the United Kingdom judgment of 9 June 1998, Reports 1998-III, p. 1403, § 36 × 36. The applicant complained in addition that the respondent State's failure to warn and advise her parents or monitor her health prior to her diagnosis with leukaemia in October 1970 had given rise to a violation of Article 2 of the Convention. In this connection, the Court considers that the first sentence of Article 2 § 1 enjoins the State not only to refrain from the intentional and unlawful taking of life, but also to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction (cf. the Court's reasoning in respect of Article 8 in the Guerra and Others v. Italy judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, p. 227, § 58, and see also the decision of the Commission on the admissibility of application no. 7154/75 of 12 July 1978, Decisions and Reports 14, p. 31). It has not been suggested that the respondent State intentionally sought to deprive the applicant of her life. The Court's task is, therefore, to determine whether, given the circumstances of the case, the State did all that could have been required of it to prevent the applicant's life from being avoidably put at risk. ). This involves a primary duty on the State to secure the right to life by putting in place effective criminal-law provisions to deter the commission of offences against the person, backed up by law-enforcement machinery for the prevention, suppression and punishment of breaches of such provisions. It also extends in appropriate circumstances to a positive obligation on the authorities to take preventive operational measures to protect an individual or individuals whose life is at risk from the criminal acts of another individual (see the Osman judgment cited above, p. 3159, § 115 17