Management Commission is not a de jure organ of the Rwandan State within the precincts of Article 4 of the ILC Articles, it is an administrative unit of the local government entity known as the City of Kigali. To that extent, the instant case presents a hybrid of Articles 4 and 5 of the ILC Articles whereby the Commission was empowered to exercise governmental authority but was so empowered as an organ of the City of Kigali, a local government unit. It is manifestly clear that in so far as the Kigali City Abandoned Property Management Commission had been legally authorized to perform a function that was explicitly designated as a function of the State, it was empowered to exercise governmental authority within the precincts of Article 5 of the ILC Articles. Consequently, the Respondent would be responsible for the Commission’s acts. 37. Having so found, it would follow that the decentralization of the governmental authority in question to provincial, regional and local government units would not negate the Respondent’s responsibility for the Commission’s conduct. We are fortified in this approach by the recognition that States that operate a decentralized form of governance vary widely in their structure and distribution of powers, and in most cases the constituent local government units have no separate international legal personality of their own. In the instant case, we have carefully scrutinized Law No. 10 of 2006, the objective of which is to determine ‘the structure, organization and the functioning of the City of Kigali.’ See Article 1 thereof. Article 11 of that law details the mandate of the City of Kigali, essentially restricting it to Rwanda’s national jurisdiction. There is no indication whatsoever in Law No. 10 of 2006 that the City of Kigali is granted international legal personality. Therefore, we find that the legal personality enjoyed by the City of Kigali under Law No. 10 of 2006 is restricted to Rwanda’s internal legal regime. REFERENCE No. 10 OF 2013 Page 19