test is one of means and not outcome45 and one that considers the resources of the State to be taken into account. 46 The Respondent State further submits that when assessing compliance with due diligence, the Commission ought to give consideration to "the difficulties involved in policing modern societies" 47 and that "the existence of a violation does not in itself prove the failure to take preventative measures" .48 120. The Respondent States further contend that they complied with Article 1 of the Charter because they promulgated the following Legislative measures: 121. The Combating of Immoral Practices Act, 1980 (Act No 21 of 1980); Domestic Violence Act, 2003 (4 of 200-3); Prevention of Organized Crime Act, 2004 (Act No. 29 of 2004); Affirmative Action (Employment) Act, 1998 (Act 4 of 1998); Labour Act, 2007 (Act 11 of 2007); Married Persons Equality Act, 1996 (Act 1 of 1996); Abortion and sterilization Act, 1975 (Act 2 of 1975); Combating of Rape Act, 2000 (Act 8 of 2000); Social Security Act, 1994 (34 of 1994); Criminal Procedure Amendment Act, 1977 (Act 51 of 1977); Police Act, 1990 (Act 19 of 1990); International Co-operation in Criminal Matters Act, 2000 (Act 9 of 2000) and Combating of Trafficking in Persons Act, 2018 (Act No. 1 of 2018). 122. Regarding allegati.o ns of violations ofArticle 5 of the Charter and Article 4(2)(g) of the Maputo Protocol, the Respondent State submits that they have promulgated laws and various educational and awareness campaigns on T.I.P, however the contraventions of these laws are inevitable. It is further contended that since the Respondent State had no knowledge of the sexual violence and bodily harm meted upon the complainant, those violations cannot be attributed to them. The Respondent State argues that after learning of the allegations of violations, they immediately instituted an investigation and also filed a highpriority request with INTERPOL Kenya. It is further averred by the Respondent State that at all times, the Complainant was given timeous, reasonable and proportionate assistance using the National Standard Op~ .. ·g ,, edures for the Multi-Disciplinary Management of Gender-Basedl'.Violenc:e ,.~ iolence against Children in Namibia. " ' f' \ -,: The Respondent State further submit that the Friendly Haven Shelter, where, they argued, she 123. 45 Hadijatou Mani Koraou v The Republic of Niger 2008 46 Dorothy jemanze and 3 others v Federal Republic of Nigeria case 201 7 4 7 Osman v United Kingdom ECHR 1998 48 Velasquez Rodrigues v Honduras IACHR 1988 26 the olice