A/HRC/39/63 jurisprudence nonetheless requires the existence of a particularly great degree of control, as shown, for example, by the provision of considerable military and financial support and systematic alignment with State policy.8 In this connection, witness statements confirm that a group of demobilized soldiers, subsequently joined by Imbonerakure, was created in 2006 and has since been trained, armed and remunerated by the former Administrator-General of the National Intelligence Service. Following the killing of that official in 2015, the group was supplemented by new members selected and used by officials of the National Intelligence Service, the police and the army to conduct operations, including summary executions and targeted disappearances. On the basis of this information, the Commission is of the view that the group is acting in complete dependence on the Burundian State. 26. The Commission remains convinced that the Imbonerakure often operate under the “effective control” of the Burundian State. International jurisprudence requires that such control be demonstrated in each case through the planning and organization of operations, the issuance of orders or the provision of equipment by the State. 9 Several witness statements attest to that level of control during operations carried out by Imbonerakure. 27. However, to date, international judges have issued rulings only in cases involving entities acting outside the territory of the State in question. In such cases, the State must have exercised direct control in order to be held accountable. The Imbonerakure, however, are committing wrongful acts on Burundian territory. The State thus has more means at its disposal, in particular of a legislative, judicial and financial nature, for putting an end to their activities or, on the contrary, for promoting them through its action or deliberate inaction. It is therefore in a position to exercise overall effective control over the Imbonerakure. Given that the Imbonerakure have been involved in a wide range of activities, including some within the purview of the Government; have in a number of cases acted autonomously but with a freedom of action afforded by the authorities; and have continued to enjoy near-total impunity, the Commission is of the view that the Burundian State is responsible for the wrongful acts committed by the Imbonerakure, since it exercises overall effective control. Therefore, under international law, the Burundian State may be held accountable for all of the human rights violations attributable to the Imbonerakure. (b) Obligation to protect 28. The State has a duty to protect the human rights of persons under its jurisdiction, in particular when it knows or should have known of violations or abuses committed by third parties. By allowing its agents and/or Imbonerakure who are responsible for such acts to go unpunished, including by not conducting investigations or initiating proceedings against them, the Burundian State is failing to meet its obligation to protect. By not taking action to combat impunity and not undertaking a thorough reform of its judicial system (see paras. 62–65), the Burundian State is encouraging the repeated commission of human rights violations and abuses. (c) Obligation to fulfil 29. Article 2 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights requires States parties to take steps to the maximum of their available resources with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights recognized therein. The fact that international assistance to Burundi has decreased since 2015 as a result of violations of civil and political rights does not relieve the Burundian State of its obligation to devote the maximum of its available resources to the realization of economic and social rights. Yet the Commission has noted that the country’s domestic resources are oriented more towards defence and security expenditures and that there are many exemptions. The Commission has also received information on the misappropriation and seizure of public property by 8 9 GE.18-13070 International Court of Justice, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007. Ibid.; see also International Court of Justice, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986. 7