67. In the same vein the obligation of state to prevent, imposes the duty to carry out an effective investigation into acts amounting to human rights violations, with the aim of prosecuting the perpetrators and redressing the victims. In SERAP & 10 0rs v. The Federal Republic of Nigeria & 4 Ors (2014) ECW/CCJ/JUD/16/14, the Court held that: “By failing to prevent violation of the Plaintiffs’ rights to peaceful assembly or to carry out a thorough investigation on the violation of that right, in order to hold accountable those responsible…Federal Republic of Nigeria has breached its international obligation arising from the African Charter.” In light of the foregoing, since the Court has no records that the Respondent took prompt action to arrest the mayhem and conducted an impartial, prompt and independent investigation into the series of attacks and killings carried out by the Fulani herdsmen in the community of the Applicants, the Court finds the Respondent is in violation of their obligation to protect the affected members of the Agatu communities. Therefore in fulfilling its obligations, it is imperative that the Respondent conducts an effective investigation into the mass killings and destruction of properties to identify the root cause of the crisis and hold the perpetrators accountable. 68. The Applicants have made claims for some compensation on behalf of the Communities. The Court has no record of the details of the victims, their names, gender, age, address; the properties destroyed have also not been specifically identified nor their value indicated. In this wise, the Court is unable to award any monetary compensation. This opinion was also held in the case of SERAP V. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA ECW/CCJ/JUD/08/09/& ECW/CCJ/JUD/18/12 at Para 115 that: “In any case, if the pecuniary compensation was to be granted to individual victims, a serious problem could arise in terms of justice morality and equity within a very large population, what would be the criteria to identify the victims that deserve compensation? Why compensate someone and not compensate his neighbour.” 69. The Court adjudicating in a public hearing, after hearing both Parties on matter of human rights violation, decides as follows: DECISION: 30