was not State driven as the aunt of the victims took the initiative to bring the case to the attention of the police and the appeal was also initiated by the lawyer of the victims. Moreover, the investigation and court proceeding was unduly prolonged and contrary to the best interest of the child as indicated in the admissibility ruling of this decision. With regards to prosecution and punishment, the Committee finds that the Respondent State has not shown due diligence to prosecute all the perpetrators of the violations, furthermore the one that was prosecuted has been released on bail and the police are not able to locate him. Such failure on the part of the Respondent State reflects ignorance that leaves perpetrators with impunity and does not send a deterring massage for other slave masters. Therefore, due to lack of due diligence in preventing the enslavement of Said and Yarg, taking proactive measures to investigate the violation and effectively prosecute and ensure effective remedy punish all perpetrators, as well as failing to to the victims, the Committee finds the Respondent State in violation of its obligation under article 1 of the African Children’s Charter which requires it to take all the necessary measures possible to respect, the Charter. protect, promote, and fulfill the rights enumerated in Alleged violation of article 3 on non-discrimination 59. Article 3 of the African Children’s Charter provides that “Every child shall be entitled to the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms recognized and guaranteed in this Charter irrespective of the child’s or his/her parents’ or legal guardians’ race, ethnic group, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national and social origin, fortune, birth or other status.” The Complainants alleged that the two brothers were treated differently from other children in their former master’s house. They were held as slaves, required to work seven days a week without pay, without rest, were not allowed to attend school and were not afforded time for play. It was further alleged that the discrimination the children has faced resulted in violation of their right to development, education, leisure, their right not to be subjected to child labor as well as their right not to be subjected to inhumane and degrading treatment. The Complainants also stated that while other children in the house were referred to with their names, the two brothers were simply called ‘slave’. The Applicants further alleged that the differential treatment to which the two boys were subjected was solely based on the fact that they belonged to the Haratine ethnic group, who are victims of slavery in Mauritania. 60. Moreover, the Committee, from the records of the hearing, learned that Said and Yarg testified that they are subjected to different treatment which amounts to discrimination. Both from the submissions of the Complainants and the testimony of the two brothers, the Committee noted that the two brothers were treated differently than the other children in the household due to their status as slaves. 61. Following the submissions, the Committee deliberated on whether the different treatment that the two brothers have been subjected to amounts to discrimination or not. The Committee shares the view that for a 17