The Court agrees with the reasoning of the INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMISSION 53RD SESSION when it opined thus: “Every internationally wrongful act by a state gives rise to international responsibility. And international wrongful acts exist; where conduct consisting of an action or omission is imputed to a state under international law, and such conduct in itself as a direct or indirect cause of an external event constitutes a failure to carry out an international obligation of the state.” 98. This Court reaffirms that the provision contained in Article 1 of the ACHPR created an obligation of absolute character requiring the States Parties to take legislative, judicial, administrative, educational and other appropriate measures to fulfil their obligations. These obligations cannot be derogated from for reasons that perpetrators are non-state actors. The obligation to protect is more of a positive nature and require state to guarantee that private individuals do not violate these rights. States will be held responsible for any violations of rights under the charter regardless if such acts of violations were carried out by state agents or not. It is in that wise that The African Commission held as follows: “The negligence of a State to guarantee the protection of the rights of the Charter having given rise to a violation of the said rights constitutes a violation of the rights of the Charter which would be attributable to this State, even where it is established that the State itself or its officials are not directly responsible for such violations but have been perpetrated by private individuals.” Communication 266/03, KEVIN MGWANGA GUNME ET AL V. CAMEROON (2009), PARA 122; COMMUNICATION 272/03, ASSOCIATION OF VICTIMS OF POST ELECTORAL VIOLENCE & INTERIGHTS V. CAMEROON (2009) 99. The Commission further held that: “This Article places on the State Parties the positive obligation of preventing and punishing the violation by private individuals of the rights prescribed by the Charter. Thus any illegal act carried out by an individual against the rights guaranteed and not directly attributable to the State can constitute, as had been indicated earlier, a cause of international responsibility of the State, not because it has itself committed the act in question, but because it has failed to exercise the conscientiousness required to prevent it from happening and 27