duty to prevent others from violating the rights protected, and the duty to protect. They argue that the duty to protect has been elaborated in detail by the European Court, which found that States must not only respect the rights and freedoms that the European Convention on Human Rights (the European Convention) embodies, but that “In order to secure the enjoyment of those rights and freedoms, those authorities must prevent or 70. AC HP R remedy any breach at subordinate levels.”7 The Complainants submit that, in line with the consistent approach of other regional human rights bodies, the African Commission has found that positive obligations arise not only in respect of violations by state actors, but also by private individuals. They refer to Social and Economic Rights Action Centre (SERAC) and Another v. Nigeria (the SERAC case)8 where it was held that, governments have a duty to protect their citizens, not only through appropriate legislation and effective enforcement, but also by protecting them from damaging acts that may be perpetrated by private parties. This duty calls for positive action on the part of governments in fulfilling their obligations under international human rights instruments. 71. The Complainants submit that the second positive duty is to investigate when a violation has occurred. They argue that the Respondent State has an obligation to effectively investigate every situation involving the violation of rights. They refer to the Inter-American Court on Human Rights (the Inter-American Court) which held that if the State apparatus 7 HJ Steiner & P Alston (2000) ‘International Human Rights in Context Law, Politics, Morals’ (2nd Edition Oxford University Press) at 797. 8 Communication 155/96- Social and Economic Rights Action Centre and Another v. Nigeria (SERAC Case) (2001) ACHPR. 17