The African Regional System 4 In Commission Nationale des Droits de l’Homme et des Libertes v Chad, the Commission found that the requirement in Article 1 of the ACHPR that States Parties not only recognise the rights in the Charter, but also “undertake… measures to give effect to them” implies that “if a state neglects to ensure the rights in the African Charter, this can constitute a violation, even if the State or its agents are not the immediate cause of the violation.”572 Thus, failure by the Chadian government to secure the safety of its citizens from non-State actors or to investigate violations by non-State actors led the Commission to find that the State had breached its duties under Article 5.573 The Commission reiterated the State obligation to protect individuals from ill-treatment by non-State actors in later cases,574 but it was not until Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v Zimbabwe that the extent of State responsibility for acts of non-State actors was discussed in detail.575 That case concerned, among other things, allegations of torture and extra-judicial executions by ZANU (PF) (the ruling political party) and the Zimbabwe Liberation War Veterans Association. Despite their close links to the government, the Commission found that these organisations and their members were non-State actors. In this context, the Commission once again noted the importance of Article 1 of the ACHPR, reiterating that the State may be held responsible only for impairments of rights which can be attributed to the action or omission of a public authority.576 The Commission, citing the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court in particular,577 held that “human rights law imposes obligations on States to protect citizens or individuals under their jurisdiction from the harmful acts of others. Thus, an act by a private individual and therefore not directly imputable to a State can generate responsibility of the State, not because of the act itself, but because of the lack of due diligence to prevent the violation or for not taking the necessary Commission Nationale des Droits de l’Homme et des Libertes v Chad, AfrCommHPR, Communication No. 74/1992, 18th session, 2–11 October 1995, §20. Ibid. §22. 574 See, for example, Purohit and Moore v The Gambia (2003), op. cit., §61; Mouvement Burkinabé des Droits de l’Homme et des Peuples v Burkina Faso, AfrCommHPR, Communication No. 204/1997, 29th session, 23 April–7 May 2001, §42. 575 Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v Zimbabwe (2006), op. cit. 576 Ibid. §142. 577 The African Commission made extensive reference to the due diligence requirement elaborated by the Inter-American Court in Velásquez-Rodríguez v Honduras (1982), op. cit: Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v Zimbabwe (2006), op. cit., §144–146. It also made reference to the ECHR case X and Y v the Netherlands (1985), op. cit (at §153) and UN treaties and mechanisms (at §159, footnote 50). 572 573 130