have investigated the issue but the Applicants argued that the investigation/s were inadequate and/or non-existent. Whereas the Respondent considered the investigations to have been effective, it still had a positive duty to investigate the alleged criminal conduct even though it enjoys a margin of discretion as to how it complies with that duty. In carrying out this task, it should have an element of scrutiny in the interest of natural justice principles. The violation of the right to life, pursuant to Article 4 of the ACHPR was eminent after the Respondent failed to conduct an investigation notwithstanding the fact that the Applicants had requested an investigation into the death of a human being, a crime under the extant laws of Nigeria. The African Commission in the case of Noah Kazingachire, John Chitsenga, Elias Chemvura and Batanai Hadzisi (represented by Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum) v. Zimbabwe (2012) ACHPR, 295/04 found that Zimbabwe violated articles 1 and 4 (right to life) of the African Charter. While the right to life is not absolute, law enforcement officers are only permitted to kill in self-defense or in the defense of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury. Use of deadly force must be a last resort. Further, that an act that violates human right laws, even if it is not directly imputable to a state, can lead to international responsibility of the state if the state fails to exercise due diligence in preventing or responding to the violation. The Court notes that the Applicants and the deceased were attacked; the attack resulted in death and serious grievous bodily harm and mental distress. This should have been recognized and addressed by the Respondent who failed to treat the criminal offence with the severity it deserves. Therefore, the Respondent negligently allowed the violation, warranting liability for failing to adduce relevance to the unlawful and justified killing of a man. The Court therefore finds the Respondent liable for the unlawful killing of Mr. Abutu Adamu and holds that the Respondent violated the right to life of the deceased. ISSUE 4: Whether the Respondent investigated the allegation of murder contained in the complaint forwarded to it. Pursuant to its responsibility as a state who has signed and ratified the ACHPR, the Respondent is under obligation to investigate into the allegation of murder that is brought 13