FRONEMAN J [137] Mr van Wyk‘s conduct that night involved a simultaneous commission and omission. The commission consisted of the positive physical act of raping the applicant. The omission consisted of his failure to protect her.71 The former is a delict for which Mr van Wyk is personally liable to the applicant, but not because of any duty flowing from public constitutional or statutory obligations. The wrongfulness consists of the breach of the general duty of all to refrain from infringing the physical integrity and security of person of another. No direct state liability can flow from that. The latter possibility, of omission, is more problematic. [138] It is accepted in our law that there is a constitutional duty on the police to prevent, combat and investigate crime and to protect the inhabitants of the Republic. [139] In Van Eeden this duty was stated in the following terms: ―The fundamental values enshrined in the Constitution include human dignity, the achievement of equality and the advancement of human rights and freedoms, nonracialism and non-sexism (section 1(a) and (b) of the Constitution). In terms of section 12(1)(c) 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. . . . Freedom from violence is recognised as fundamental to the equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms (S v Baloyi (Minister of Justice and Another Intervening) 2000 (2) SA 425 (CC) at para 13). Section 12(1)(c) requires the state to protect individuals, both by refraining from such invasions itself and by taking active steps to prevent violation of the right. The subsection places a positive duty on the state to protect everyone from violent crime.‖72 71 See Feldman (Pty) Ltd v Mall 1945 AD 733 at 744 and K above n 1 at paras 48-9 and 53. 72 Van Eeden above n 46 at para 13. 56