provide the victims with reparation. In this regard, the ACHPR in one of its decisions held that „an act by a private individual and therefore not directly imputable to a State can generate responsibility of the State, not because of the act itself, but because of the lack of due diligence to prevent the violence or for not taking the necessary steps to provide the victims with reparation.‟17 The Commission has also held that: „... 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.‟18 55. As it is discerned from the facts presented before the Committee, five years have passed since the aunt of the victim reported the rape case to the police. However, after five years of the report, the perpetrator of the rape has not been punished. The victim was not also provided with remedy. 56. As aforementioned, human rights obligation of States are that of obligation of result, not obligation of diligence. The Committee, in many of the cases before it, has underscored how time matters most when it comes to protection of children‟s right. In this regard, the Committee would like to restate the fact that the implementation and realization of children‟s rights in Africa is not a matter to be relegated for tomorrow, but an issue that is in need of proactive immediate attention and action. Time is of essence especially in cases involving rape. Delayed response in cases of rape may render the entire investigation ineffective. On this basis, the Committee believes that five years should have been enough not only to bring the perpetrator of the rape before the law but also to effectively convict him and provide the necessary support to the victim. As it stands now, this did not happen. In the Committee‟s view, this is attributed to failure of the Respondent State to carry out exhaustive investigation and to expedite the appeal proceeding. In other words, the Respondent State has not exercised due diligence in investigating and ensuring prosecution and punishment of the perpetrator within reasonable time. The appeal proceeding which is underway is also unduly prolonged and is not in line with the best interest of the child. 57. Consequently, as a result of lack of due diligence to investigate the violation and effectively prosecute and punish the perpetrator, as well as failing to ensure effective remedy to the victim, the Committee finds the Respondent State in violation of its obligation under article 1 of the African Children‟s Charter which requires it to take all the necessary measures possible to respect, protect, promote, and fulfill the rights enumerated in the Charter. ii. Alleged violation of article 3 on non-discrimination 58. The Complainants allege that the failure of the Respondent State to investigate the sexual violence TFA suffered breaches the protection from gender based discrimination. In substantiating their allegation, the Complainants argued that gender based violence which TFA suffered is a form of gender based discrimination and hence violates the principle of non-discrimination enshrined under article 3 of the African Children‟s Charter and other various international and regional human rights instruments. 59. The Committee notes that the principle of non-discrimination is a cardinal principle of the African Children‟s Charter. Article 3 of the Charter stipulates that all children are entitled to the enjoyment of the rights provided therein irrespective of all grounds including sex. This provision is clear that any form of gender based discrimination against girls is prohibited, however, it does not vividly portray that sexual violence is a form of gender based discrimination as argued by the Applicants. To address the issue whether the rape that TFA has suffered from amounts to gender based discrimination, the Committee finds that it would be paramount to draw inspiration from other international human rights instruments and organs pursuant to article 46 of the Charter. 17 Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v Zimbabwe (n 13 above), para 143. MouvementIvoirien des droits humains (MIDH) v Cote d’Ivoire, [2002] ACHPR, Communication No 246/02 and Association of Victims of Post Electoral Violence & INTERIGHTS v Cameroon,[2003] ACHPR, Communication No 272/03 at para 88. 18 11