the commitment that, as soon as of the above investigation mentioned new facts or new charges will be discovered provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, in terms it will reopen provided for crimes would not as long as the 10 (ten) years prescription have elapsed”. 103. On the application for resumption of investigations into the murder of Norbert Zongo and his three companions, the Court notes that this is not really a measure of non- Tepetition, but rather one of cessation of a violation already established. 104. Be that as it may, the Court is of the opinion that this is indeed a legitimate measure likely to forestall the continued violation of Article 7 of the Charter in this case. 105. This position is consistent with the jurisprudence of some international courts, For instance, the Human Rights Committee held the view in a case that: “The State party should investigate the events complained of and bring to justice those held responsible for the author's treatment; it further is under an obligation to take effective measures to ensure that similar violations do not occur in the future.”* 106. For its part, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights frequently recommends to States to take certain measures to prevent a repetition of the violations it has established. recommends In the matter “that an enquiry of and Gabriel Shumba investigation v. Zimbabwe, be carried for example, out to bring those it who perpetrated the violations to justice”.*° 38 The Committee on Human Rights: M'Boissona v. Central African Republic (for Francois Bozizé), Decision of 7 April 1994, Communication No, 428/1990, para 7. 38 ACHPR: Communication 288/04, Gabriel Shumba v. Zimbabwe, 51st Session, 2 May 2012, para, 194 (2); “that an inquiry and investigation be carried out to bring those who perpetrated the violations to justice."; See in this regard Idem: Communications 54/91-61/91-98/93-164/97-196/97-210/98. Malawi Africa Association, Amnesty International, Ms Sarr Diop, Inter African Union of Human Rights and RADDHO, Group of widows and beneficiaries, Mauritanian Human Rights Association v. Mauritania, 27th Session, 11 May 2000, the operative section; Communication 241/01, Purohit and Moore v. The Gambia, 33rd Session, 29 May 2003, the operative section; Communication 279/03-296/05, Sudan Human Rights Organization and Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) v. Sudan, 45th Session, 27 May 2009, the operative section; AFCHPR: Communication 236/00, Curtis Francis Doebbler v. Sudan, 46th Session, 25 November 2009, the operative section; Communication 334/06, Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights and Interights v, Egypt, 9th Extraordinary session, | March 2011, the operative section. 32 @ g wha At x