2. 3. 4. 5. place and that several personalities had spoken of threats coming from the Social Democratic Front (SDF) against the security of people and property in the Province. That the Prime Minister at the time, Mr. Achidi Achu had alluded to the said threats th 16 in the campaign speech he made on the 6 October 1992 in Kumbo in the North-West Province. The said threats had been later mentioned by the Minister of Communication and Government Spokes-person in a press briefing on the political situation of the country during which he had spoken of the existence of a provisional arsenal of the SDF estimated at 300 17 pistols and 60 combat weapons. Furthermore, in the interview granted to the national Daily the Cameroon Tribune, the Secretary General of the ruling RDPC Party, had unveiled « the diabolical plan» concocted at the beginning of the month of October by the Opposition to take 18 over power . Moreover, direct threats having been made against all those who support the ruling party, several complaints received by the Governor of the North West province brought by citizens wishing to obtain Government protection testify to the fact that the territorial Administrative Authorities had been informed about the SDF’s plans. That despite these early warning signs, the Government of Cameroon, in neglecting to take adequate measures to prevent the events of October 1992 from taking place, thereby violated, even passively, the obligation of prevention contained in Article 1 of the African Charter. The State of Cameroon has neither brought the perpetrators of these atrocities to justice, nor paid compensation for the damages suffered by the victims whose right to an effective remedy has been violated. That in consequence, the Commission should request the Cameroonian Authorities, in 19 conformity with its own jurisprudence , to pay compensation in view of the long delay by the Justice Administration in examining the Complainants’ case. In conclusion, the Commission is being requested to reject the arguments of the Cameroonian Government, to take note of the violation of Articles 1, 4, 7 and 14 of the African Charter; to request the Government of Cameroon to institute proceedings against the perpetrators of the atrocities committed between rd th the 23 and 27 October 1992; to determine, on the basis of the evidence presented, the amount of compensation to be paid to the victims based on all the damages suffered by the latter. The Complainants further request the Commission to ask the State of Cameroon to amend the laws which are incompatible with the provisions of the African Charter and to fix a deadline for the State of Cameroon relative to the application of any decision that the Commission may take on this matter. The essence of the arguments of the respondent state in relation to the violation of Articles 1, 2, 4, 7and 14of the African Charter 79. The Respondent State for its part, argues that the violations being alluded to by the complainants are completely groundless since the State of Cameroon has not, in this particular case, deprived any of the complainants of the right to respect for his life and physical integrity nor his right to property. The State of Cameroon took measures to save the life and property of individuals during what can be called the Bamenda events. 80. Furthermore, the Respondent State intimates that this particular case happened in the context of the years called democratic agitation during which Cameroon had experienced a certain amount of agitation due to the return to a multiparty system and to individual liberties. That for this reason, from May 1990 to December 1992, and due to the organization of two major elections, the legislative then the presidential, public law and order had been disrupted throughout the country thereby giving rise to a large loss of life, and important material damage. 81. According to the Respondent State, the specific case of Bamenda, which was of major rd th proportions took place between the 23 and 30 October 1992, and was marked notably by the difficulty of the State to maintain law and order. The Respondent State further contends that in the case of Bamenda, the implementation of the mandate to protect people and property by using the rd forces of law and order had been reinforced after the 23 October 1992, date on which the results of the presidential elections were proclaimed. Thus, about 548 men had been deployed in the region of