ational as her guardian and Next friend) & 11 others v COMMISSIONER OF POLICE/INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE NATIONAL POL ignored. There seems to be a prevailing attitude that crimes of this nature are not taken seriously. These failures are significant in that there not only is an urgent need to re-assess how these cases are investigated but there is also an immediate need to adjust the attitude of the Police handling them……..” The respondentsin this petition failed to implement the rights and fundamental freedoms as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of Kenya,2010. The respondents have failed in their fundamental duties as stated under Article 21 in failing to observe, respect, protect, promote and fulfill the petitioners’ fundamental rights and freedoms in particular the rights and freedoms relating to special protection as members of vulnerable group(Article 21(3), equality and freedom from non-discrimination(Article 27) humanity dignity(Article 29), access to justice (Article 48 and 50) and protection from abuse, neglect, all forms of violence and inhuman treatment(Article 53(1),(d) under the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. The petitioners referred me to the case of VAN EADER V MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY(2002) ZASCA 123 in which case police allowed a dangerous criminal and serial rapist to escape from their custody. The supreme court of Appeal of South ‘Africa held:“The fundamental values enshrined in the Constitution include human dignity, the achievement of equality and the advancement of human rights and freedoms……..everyone has the right to freedom and security of the person, which includes the right to be free from all forms of violence from either public or private sources……… In all the circumstances of the present case I have come to the conclusion that the Police owed the appellant a legal duty to act positively to prevent Mohammed’s escape……..I have reached this conclusion mainly in view of the State’s Constitutional imperatives to which I have referred.” The court held that police had breached the applicant’s fundamental rights and freedoms by allowing the rapist to escape from their custody. In the instant petition the police have allowed the dangerous criminals to remain free and/or at large. The respondents are responsible for arrest and prosecution of the criminals who sexually assaulted the petitioners and the failure of State agents to take proper and effective measures to apprehend and prosecute the said perpetrators of defilement and protect the petitioners being children of tender years, they are in my opinion responsible for torture, defilement and conception of young girls and more particular the petitioners herein. In case of JESSICA LENAHAN(Gonzales) et al V UNITED STATES,Case 12.626, Report No.80/11, August, 17,2011. The inter-American Commission on Human Rights considered Police obligations to enforce a restraining order in circumstances where a father took his children from their mother’s custody without permission and killed them. The Commission found that there was “broad International consensus” that States “may incur ..responsibility for failing to act with due diligence to prevent, investigate, sanction and offer reparations for acts of violence against women”…………………..women. The State’s duty to protect is heightened in the case of vulnerable groups such as girl-children and the State’s failure to protect it need not be intentional to constitute a breach of its obligation. The courts have found that State has a clear duty to investigate crime and found the failure to do so constitute a Constitutional violation of claimant’s rights. In R V Commissioner of Police & 3 Others ex-parte PHYLIS TEMWAI KIPTEYO HC.MISC.APPL.27 OF 2008,(2011) EKLR(BUNGOMA)the court stated:- http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 11/17