202. The Commission turns to consider how discrimination against women in violation of Article 2 and 18(3) of the Charter may be established, absent the Male comparator test. The Complainants implore the Commission to use a substantive equality approach that is based on the victim's disadvantage, recognizing the systemic way in which women are subjected to sexual violence particularly as a result of multiple discrimination that intersect on the basis of sex, gender and age. 136 This submission is synonymous with a prevailing call for the Commission 137 as well as other adjudicators, both domestic and international to adopt a substantive equality approach as postulated by the Complainants.138 203. The Commission notes that there is precedent and indeed a rapidly developing jurisprudence on a ubstantive equality approach to discrimination that has been applied by different International and human rights bodies. The ECtHR in the last two decades has developed a substantive equality jurisprudence, moving beyond the formal conceptions and focu ing on how individuals and groups experience the reality of discrimination. Distinctively, the European approach has laid an emphasis on discriminatory effect and not essentially on notions of distinction. In DH v. Czech Republic, 139 the ECtHR addressed the incidence of Roma children in special schools meant for students with learning deficiencies. The Grand Chamber found that there was a disproportionately large representation of the Roma children in the special schools and held that this proved discriminatory effect. The Grand Chamber accepted reports of European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (" ECRI"), and the Advisory Committee of the Framework Convention on National Minorities as well as statistics to prove that the discriminatory effect. Having proven the discriminatory effect, the ECtHR shifted the burden to the Government to justify it under the European Convention. The Grand Chamber rejected the justification of the Czech government that the Roma children had f1/· ,..,,, ...... ~'\ hological tests, 0 ◄..., 1/ I f '1 I 1 36 Complainant's Submissions, pa ra 118-124 ~ 137 Chekera-Radu (2017) wrote that "Predominantly the jurisprudence of Ii ,. , n Commissi voured the formal approach to equality ... .It is against this backdrop that the African '6.m·<W, · "' to develop jurisprudence on WLPR based on substantive equality. Given that the juris e'ik ri a1 uman rights system that shows recognition of substantive equality has been Limited, there is ">- 1f,o ·c_wi~.9>J)tnent of Afri an jurisprudence drawing some of tl1e progressive norms and standards developed by ' bodies." 137 138 Durojaye, E and Owoeye, Y (2017) " Equally equal or unequally equal: Adopting a substantive equality approach to gender discrimination in igeria" Internationa l Journal of Discrimination and the Law, 17(2): 70-85 (http ://core.a .uk/read r/161256040 ); 139 Application o. 57325/00, Merits, 7 February 2006. = 53