Bamenda with motor vehicles and other vehicles for the maintenance of law and order and equipment adapted to deal with the situation on the ground. However, although the post electoral disturbances had taken place in other parts of the territory, these incidents had been extraordinarily violent in Bamenda where they took the form of a generalized insurrection and had been instigated by the militants of an Opposition Party, the Social Democratic Front (SDF). 82. Moreover, the Respondent State contends that: 1. Following the destruction, a joint Gendarmerie-Police-Justice Commission had been set up and given the responsibility for carrying out investigations on all suspects who had been arrested. However, the individuals who were given heavy charges and had been brought before the State security Court had later been released on the persistent request of the human rights defender organizations. 2. That it happened that the State of Cameroon, having steadfastly implemented the legal, technical, human and material resources at its disposal to contain the post electoral events of Bamenda in 1992, it was thus freed from the obligation of diligence which was its responsibility. The extent of the events in question having the character of force majeure was such that they could not be attributed to the State of Cameroon. 3. That in view of the full compensation being demanded by the complainants, it should be recalled that the responsibility of the State of Cameroon could not be established in either the unexpected happening of the Bamenda events, or in their management. Consequently, it would be extremely difficult to pay compensation since there is no law which authorizes this sort of payment particularly where the State is not the perpetrator in any way. 4. That in relation to the enactment of a law allowing the payment of fair and equitable compensation to the victims of the human rights violations in Cameroon, following the unexpected happening of the events in question, the following institutions had been successively put in place: o An organization for political dialogue at the national level called the Tripartite and comprising the State, Civil Society and the Political Parties. This Tripartite had made th possible the realization of the constitutional amendments of 18 January 1996. o A Committee then a National Human Rights and Liberties Commission; o A National Elections Observatory and the strengthening of the National Communications Council. 5. That taking all these matters into consideration and with all the proper reservations, the African Commission should declare the present communication baseless. Analysis of the Commission with regard to the nature and scope of the obligation conatained in Article 1 of the African Charter 83. It follows from the arguments of the facts and the law presented by the complainant party and responded to by the Respondent Party, that the nature and the scope of the obligation contained in Article 1 of the African Charter constitute a matter of special importance in the present communication. Thus, according to the complainant party, Article 1 of the African Charter imposes an obligation on the States Parties to take measures which can produce concrete results. Whereas it can be inferred from the arguments submitted by the Respondent Party that the provisions of Article 1 of the African Charter impose an obligation of diligence on the States Parties. 84. It is therefore up to the African Commission to clarify the nature and scope of this article. It is evident that the legal aspect raised by the argument of the two parties present before the African Commission relates to the question whether Article 1 of the African Charter imposes an obligation of diligence or an obligation of result vis-à-vis the States Parties to the said Charter. In other words, did the States Parties to the African Charter make the commitment of taking measures which should give certain results by virtue of Article 1?