acts in such a way that the violation goes unpunished and the victim‟s full enjoyment of such right is not restored as soon as possible, the State has failed to comply with its duty to ensure the free and full exercise of those rights to the persons within its jurisdiction. 72. According to the Complainants, the same is true when the state allows private persons or groups to act freely and with impunity to the detriment AC HP R of the rights recognised by the African Charter. The Complainants argue that where serious violations have taken place, it is the obligation of the state to ensure that criminal investigations are undertaken and effective prosecutions pursued. The Complainants further note that the European Court in M.C. v. Bulgaria held that the investigation must be independent, thorough and effective, and that access to a judicial remedy must be available and the state may be obliged to provide compensation.9 73. The Complainants aver that, a state‟s compliance to its positive obligations towards its citizens is assessed by the due diligence test. They again make reference to the SERAC case where the African Commission recognised due diligence standard as a test for determining compliance by states in protecting the rights of citizens from being violated. 74. The Complainants submit that the Respondent State failed in its positive obligations to prevent and investigate the violations, which is a violation of Article 1 of the African Charter. They cite the African Commission‟s decision in the Legal Resource Foundation v Zambia,10 where it held that “Article 1 of the African Charter requires that the State not only recognize 9 MC v Bulgaria [2003] ECHR. 10 Communication 211/98-Legal Resources Foundation v. Zambia (2001) ACHPR. 18