PREFACE that existed, could unitedly triumph over historical injustices that had hurt the weakest sections of our country, particularly Dalits and Adivasis. The Commission added that this was, above all, a national responsibility and a moral imperative that can and must be honoured. As the year under review was drawing to a close, the situation in Gujarat, beginning with the Godhra tragedy and continuing with the violence that ensued, greatly preoccupied the Commission. The tragic events that occurred had serious implications for the country as a whole, affecting both its sense of self-esteem and the esteem in which it was held in the comity of nations. In the view of the Commission, grave questions arose of fidelity to the Constitution and to treaty obligations. There were obvious implications in respect of the protection of civil and political rights, as well as of economic, social and cultural rights. But most of all, in the view of the Commission, the events raised questions regarding the violation of the Fundamental Rights to life, liberty, equality and dignity of citizens of India as guaranteed in the Constitution. It is a statutory responsibility of the Commission to uphold the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in the Constitution and the treaties to which our State is a party. It is therefore also a duty of the Commission to contribute to the jurisprudence on human rights in a manner that is consistent with that role. In respect of the situation in Gujarat, therefore, the Commission held that: '... it is the primary responsibility of the State to protect the right to life, liberty, equality and dignity of all those who constitute it. It is also the responsibility of the State to ensure that such rights are not violated either through overt acts, or through abetment or negligence.' The Commission added that: '... it is a clear and emerging principle of human rights jurisprudence that the State is responsible not only for the acts of its own agents, but also for the acts of non-State players acting within its jurisdiction. The State is, in addition, responsible for any inaction that may cause or facilitate the violation of human rights.' In all of its nine years, the Commission has had to work under a Statute, the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, that is less than perfect and that, in various ANNUAL REPORT 2001-2002