49. The Committee takes the view that, human rights obligation of States is that of obligation of result, not obligation of diligence.13 Therefore, the Committee is of the view that the due diligence of the Respondent State in relation to the current communication should be assessed by the result it has achieved. 50. The Committee also upheld the duty of States to conduct effective investigations into alleged cases of sexual abuse, including those involving children as it is reflected in the various decisions that the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has pronounced. Particularly, the Committee notes the ECtHR‟s decision in P. M. v Bulgaria where the ECtHR held that investigations into alleged cases of sexual abuse „should in principle be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and to the identification and punishment of those responsible.‟14 Moreover, in the case M. C. v Bulgaria, the European Court held that „States have a positive obligation … to enact criminal law provisions effectively punishing rape and to apply them in practice through effective investigation and prosecution.‟15 51. As the facts presented before the Committee indicate, complaint of rape has been lodged with the authorities; the rape was confirmed by a medical certificate obtained at the police‟s own request; the victim has testified by narrating the violations she had suffered; and the locus of the rape committed on the victim has been identified. In the view of the Committee, given the above facts, believes that the Respondent State should have carried out an effective investigation to substantiate the available evidence and prosecute the perpetrator of rape committed against the victim. The Committee notes that the State Counsel has filed the findings before the Investigating Magistrate. However, upon the submissions of the State Counsel, the Investigating Magistrate dismissed the evidence for disclosing no case and acquitted the suspect without hearing from the victim or her representatives. 52. At this juncture, the Committee would like to emphasise on two points. First, the Respondent State through its agents (in this case the police and the state council) should have organised conclusive evidence and present it to the Investigating Magistrate by substantiating available evidences that lead to prosecution of the perpetrator. In cases where the Investigating Magistrate failed to give reasonable decision even with the presence of conclusive evidence, the state council should have appealed the case within the reasonable time. Although the Respondent State alleged that the appeal of the case is underway, the Committee, first, is of the view that the appeal is unduly prolonged since the judgment was handed in 2012. Second, if the available evidence indicates that the suspect did not commit rape against the TFA, the Respondent State owes a duty to TFA to conduct effective investigation and find out the person who violated her right, and to prosecute the perpetrator. In this regard, the Respondent State failed to discharge its duty as it did not carry out effective investigation that results in punishment of the perpetrator of rape committed against TFA. 53. As aforementioned, states must exercise due diligence in investigating and prosecuting human rights violations. The due diligence standard imposes upon states the obligation to „organize the governmental apparatus, and in general, all the structures through which public power is exercised, so that they are capable of juridically ensuring the free and full enjoyment of human rights.‟16 54. In this regard, the Committee would like to accentuate that the obligation to carry out an effective investigation is required not only if the violation is committed by state agents, but also if it is committed by a non-state actors. In the event where the State fails to show due diligence to investigate violence perpetrated by non-state actors, the state assumes responsibility under international law for not exercising due diligence in investigating the violation and ensuring punishment of the perpetrator as well as for not taking measures to 13 Association of Victims of Post Electoral Violence and Another v Cameroon (2009) AHRLR 47 (ACHPR 2009) para 110, 111; De Cubber v Belgium, application 9186/80, European Court of Human Rights, judgment, 26 October 1984 para 35. 14 P.M. V Bulgaria, Application no. 49669/07, European Court of Human Right, Judgment, 24 January 2012, paragraph 64. 15 M.C. V Bulgaria, Application no. 39272/98, European Court of Human Right, Judgment, 4 December 2003,paragraph 153. 1616 Velasquez Rodriguez Case, Judgment of July 29, 1988, IACHR (Ser C) No 4 (1988), para 166. 10