"Responsibility is the corollary of international law, the best proof of its existence and most credible measure of its effectiveness. Every legal system allocates responsibility. Norms, or secondary rules, operate to hold a person accountable for contravening a primary legal obligation." 35. It is also the rule of law going also by the opinion above that a primary rule in domestic law or the Community law is the obligation not to interfere with another's property as in Article 14 of the said African Charter. As the said writer puts it, "whether the interference is attributable to a particular person and, if so, what remedies the victim can seek are determined by the secondary rules." He also said, 'State Responsibility for international wrongful acts follows the same logic'. Consequently we hold that secondary rules in international law are no different from primary rules in that they must be shown to derive from a treaty, custom or general principles and secondary rules are the rights and obligations that apply after a primary rule has been violated. In our view, by the Articles on Responsibility of States for internationally Wrongful Acts, with Commentaries (2001) Report of the ILC, 53R 0 session (2001) 11(2) Yearbook of the ILC 26, UN. Doc. A/56/10(2001) (ILC Articles), is not out of place herein. 36. Sometimes, it has been suggested that this principle needs to be qualified, to exclude from State responsibility unlawful conduct by very low-ranking public officials but it was stated that this cannot be right and we reject the statement, in the way that it has always been rejected by its exclusion in cases applied by international human rights court and state that it matters not what type of organ of State is concerned, or what internal function it performs, nor whether it holds a superior or subordinate position in the organization of the State. We also state that in respect of the conduct of persons acting on behalf of the State it matters not whether the persons hold superior or subordinate position, the fact that attribution of their conduct to the State is cast in general terms leads one to the same conclusion. 15