Concerning the institution of alternative school for the pregnant girls, the Court holds that the establishment of separate school for the pregnant adolescent girls with four (4) taught subjects operating three (3) days a week is discriminatory and a violation of the right to (equal) education. 4. WHETHER THE APPLICANT IS ENTITLED TO THE RELIEFS SOUGHT. It is settled law that once the Court finds a violation of human discretion to order reparation is unquestionable. The kind granted by the court depends on the circumstances of each case of SERAP vs. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA ECW/CCJ/JUD/18/12, the court, inter alia, held in paragraph rights, its of reparation to be case. In the decided JUDGMENT No.: 118 ofits judgment that: ..the obligation of granting relief for violation of human rights is a universally accepted principle. The Court acts indeed within the limits of its prerogative when it indicates for every case brought before it the reparation it deems appropriate.” Reparation could be pecuniary, that is monetary compensation for damage suffered by the victim as a result of the violation, or a declaratory or an order depending on the nature of each case. The Court, in making an order for reparation would have to consider the case of the Applicant and the nature of the reliefs sought by him or her. In the instant case, the Applicant sought seven reliefs. The first and second reliefs of the Applicant have been dealt with supra that since the action of the Respondent is considered discriminatory as regards the treatment of pregnant school girls, it follows from the principle in the case of SERAP vs. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (quoted supra), that the Applicant is entitled to a 29