differential treatment to be justified “the reasons for possible limitations must be founded in a legitimate State interest and limitations of rights must be strictly proportionate with and absolutely necessary for the advantages which are to be obtained”.”” The Committee notes that slavery is clearly prohibited under the national law of Mauritania and various international human rights laws. In the matter at hand the differential treatment that Said and Yarg have been subjected to emanates from the fact that they are considered as slaves of the El Hassin family, and that does not in any way justify the different treatment; hence it amounts to discrimination under the Charter. 62. The Committee then proceeded in analysing the legal responsibility of the Respondent State taking the fact that the act of discrimination was committed by private individuals. It is the Committee’s view that the Respondent State has the duty to protect children from discrimination in the enjoyment of their rights in the Charter. The duty to protect has two limbs. The first is the duty to take preventive measures against occurrences of violations of human rights by private actors; and the second is the duty to take remedial measures once the violations have occurred.*? In line with the preventive aspect of the duty to protect, States ‘must take reasonable steps to prevent human rights violations and carry out investigation to impose the appropriate punishment and to ensure the victim's adequate compensation’. 63.In the Communication at hand, Said and Yarg were facing discriminatory treatment in the exercise of their rights recognized in the Charter by the members of the El Hassin family for 11 years until they escaped from the house. Even though the Government ratified international treaties and enacted laws that protect children like Yarg and Said from discriminatory treatment, such laws were not effectively implemented to their benefit. The failure by the Government to effectively implement laws and its inability to prevent the discriminatory treatment of Said and Yarg is a violation of the duty to protect under Article 3 of the African Children’s Charter. 64.Moreover, the Committee extends to conducting violation, imposing shares investigation, punishment the and position that the duty to protect identifying those responsible for the providing effective remedy to the victims, when the right is violated.** The effectiveness of a remedy can be measured by its proportionality to the harm caused and its timeliness. In the Communication at hand, the Government prosecuted only few members of the El Hassin Family and only one of them (Ahmed Ould El Hassine) was convicted for the crime of enslavement that resulted in the discriminatory treatment. However, all the members of the family participated in the discriminatory treatment of the brothers, ended impunity. Additionally the judicial remedy was unduly prolonged, 2 Legal resources Foundation v. Zambia, Communication No. 211/98, para 67. °° § Manisuli General International Human Rights Law: Six Decades After the (2010) 405. UDHR up with placing and Beyond o Velasquez Rodriguez v Honduras (n 3 above) para 174. 32 As above. 18