v. Decision on Admissibility 31.On the basis of the above arguments and analysis, the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child notes and concludes that the Communication submitted by the authors has fulfilled all the admissibility conditions as laid down in the Committee’s Guidelines on Consideration of Communication; and it is accordingly declared admissible. vi. Submissions on the Merits of the Communication The Complainants’ Submission on the Merits 32. The Complainants’ allegations are based on the fact that Mauritania has failed to adequately and effectively enforce the 2007 law criminalizing slavery and to ensure that the members of the family who have held the two boys in slavery were charged with offences and received sentences and punishments commensurate to the seriousness of their actions. 33.The Complainants argue that Mauritania has failed to ensure that the appeal against the unduly lenient sentences and the amount of compensation awarded is heard promptly; and has failed to ensure that the absconded slave master is located and brought to justice. 34. The Complainants submit that through its failure to adequately enforce provisions of the 2007 anti-slavery law in respect of those who held two boys in slavery, the Government of Mauritania is in breach of negative and positive obligations in relation to various rights under Charter. The complainants therefore argue that the Government necessarily in breach measures) of the Charter. of its duty under article 1 (obligation to the the its the is take 35. The Applicants submit that the difference in treatment faced by Said and Yarg in respect of their rights amounts to discrimination. In this regard, the Complainants submit that the Respondent State assumes the responsibility of preventing and investigating acts of discrimination, and punishing perpetrators with a view to ensuring redress to the victims. In the same token, the Complainants argue that the treatment of Said and Yarg and the failure of the Government to prevent such treatment and provide effective remedy violated their rights to education, survival and development, leisure, recreation, and cultural activities, protection form economic exploitation, protection against harmful social and cultural practices, and protection from sale, trafficking and abduction of children. The Complainants further argued that the delay in the court proceedings is a violation of the best interest of the child. The Respondent State’s Submission 36.The Respondent Mauritania provides State submitted on the Merits that the legislative a solid basis for the protection framework of children of against 10