a State. These principles include: state agency, i.e., a person is in fact acting on behalf of a State or exercises governmental authority in the absence of official authority, state complicity in wrongs committed by private persons and state failure to exercise due diligence in the control of private persons.27 133. The Respondent State is therefore not responsible for human rights violations carried out by members of its national army acting in their private capacity per se. But the Respondent State is bound to duly investigate, AC HP R prosecute the assailants and compensate the victims. In the Velasquez Rodriguez case,28 the Inter-American Court of Human Rights held that an illegal act which violates human rights and which initially is not directly imputable to the State, for example because it is an act of a private person, can lead to international responsibility of the State, not because of the act itself but because of the lack of due diligence to prevent the violation or respond to it. 134. The African Commission is of the opinion that the death of Lameck Chemvura is not directly imputable to the Respondent State as it is a result of the private act of a member of its national army. The African Commission however holds the Respondent State responsible in that it failed to properly respond to the death of Lameck Chemvura because of the lack of due diligence and the incapacity of the Respondent State to satisfactorily compensate the close relations of the deceased in as far as the current laws of the Respondent State obtain. 135. Regarding the case of Beaven Tatenda Kazingachire, the African Commission is further convinced that the payment of ZWD$97,000.00 made to the parents of the deceased to cover the funeral expenses is not satisfactory 27 See eg. I. Brownlie, System of the law of nations: State responsibility part I (1983), 160-163; M. Kamminga, Inter-state accountability for violations of human rights (1992), 143. 28Velásquez Rodríguez v Honduras (1988) IACtHR (Ser. C) No. 4), para. 172 37