4.2.2 Duty to investigate The African Regional System 4 As part of measures to give effect to the rights in the Charter, States are under an obligation to investigate allegations of torture or ill-treatment.584 However, this duty to investigate has been interpreted more restrictively by the African Commission than by other regional bodies. In Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v Zimbabwe, the Commission indicated that an ineffective investigation will not automatically lead to a finding of a violation; it considers that “just one investigation with an ineffective result does not establish a lack of due diligence by a State. Rather, the test is whether the State undertakes its duties seriously. Such seriousness can be evaluated through the actions of both State agencies and private actors on a case-­by-­case basis.”585 Similarly, the Commission does not consider that the State is obliged to investigate every allegation, particularly where a number of violations have occurred; it “suffices for the State to demonstrate that the measures taken were proportionate to deal with the situation.”586 Nonetheless, where the State is aware of allegations of torture or ill-treatment and does not investigate at all, it seems that a violation will be found.587 For the purposes of cases before the Commission, the mere fact of investigation will not, however, suffice. The results of the investigation must be made public, or at least communicated to the Commission.588 Where allegations of abuses are not contested by the accused State, the Commission will treat the submissions of the complainant as facts.589 4.2.3 Duty to enact and enforce legislation criminalising torture Article 1 of the ACHPR provides: See, for example, Commission Nationale des Droits de l’Homme et des Libertes v Chad (1995), op. cit., §22; Amnesty International and Others v Sudan, AfrCommHPR, Communication Nos. 48/1990, 50/1991, 52/1991, 89/1993, 26th session, 1–15 November 1999, §56; Law Office of Ghazi Suleiman v Sudan, AfrCommHPR, Communication Nos. 222/1998 and 229/1999, 33rd session, 15–29 May 2003, §46; Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v Zimbabwe (2006), op. cit., §146 585 Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v Zimbabwe (2006), op. cit., §158. 586 Ibid. §210. 587 Ibid. §186. 588 Mouvement Burkinabé des Droits de l’Homme et des Peuples v Burkina Faso (2001), op. cit., §42. 589 Ibid. §42. See also, for example, Free Legal Assistance Group and Others v Zaire, AfrCommHPR, Communication Nos. 25/1989, 47/1990, 56/1991, 100/1993, 18th session, 2–11 October 1995, §40; International Pen and Others (on behalf of Ken Saro-Wiwa Jr.) v Nigeria (1998), op. cit., §81; Constitutional Rights Project and Civil Liberties Organisation v Nigeria, AfrCommHPR, Communication Nos. 143/1995 and 150/1996, 26th session, 1–15 November 1999, §28. 584 132