needs to be read in line with the whole context of article 11 whose aim is to accord all children the right to education and which also provides specific support to pregnant girls to continue their education under article 11(6). Third, article 11(2)(c) should also be read in line with the general principles of the Charter which include among others, the best interests of the child, and the principle of non-discrimination. Fourth, the argument of the Respondent State that sexual relations among children is not an African value and that the policy aims to discourage sexual relations is not acceptable. The fact that no distinction is made among children who fall pregnant due to sexual abuse and exploitation is a manifestation that the policy's intent is not mainly aimed at discouraging sexual relations. Moreover, the promotion of a certain value cannot be achieved by establishing rules and policies that are not in conformity with the Charter. The retention of pregnant and married girls in school is a requirement set forth by the Charter under article 11(6) and forms part of the institutional measures that should be undertaken to implement article 21 of the ACRWC.45 The Committee would also like to draw inspiration from a very similar case that was considered by the Community Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) in the case of WAVES and CWS-SL v the Republic of Sierra Leone where the Complainants alleged that the ban of pregnant schoolgirls from attending schools in Sierra Leone was a violation of human rights provisions in various instruments including article 11 of the Charter. In dealing with the case, the Court held that the Respondent State violated the right to education of girls through the ban which was found to be discriminatory.46 The Court further highlighted that the segregation of pregnant girls and not considering their choice to continue their regular education and leaving them with only the option of alternative schools was stigmatization and punishment of pregnant girls.47 Accordingly, the Committee is of the view that the policies and practices that the Respondent State has put in place to expel pregnant and married girls from schools go against the rights protected under article 11 of the Charter, hence amounts to a violation of the right to education of Tanzania girls. 43. Regarding the issue of pregnancy testing of schoolgirls, the Committee is of the view that the terminology of ‘mandatory’ testing contains the same meaning as ‘forced’ since the girls have no option of refusing the test to access education. The Committee is of the view that no proof is required as to an increase in drop-out of school to establish that forced pregnancy testing is a violation of the right to education. Any form of unlawful requirement to access and continue education and any violation of children’s rights that occurs in schools and curtails education is, in and by itself, a violation of the right to education. Forced or mandatory pregnancy testing to access education is a pre-condition that is not aimed at fostering education, rather it violates the right to dignity, freedom from torture and the right to privacy of children. Therefore, the Committee finds that mandatory pregnancy testing is a violation of article 11 of the ACRWC. 45 ACERWC and ACHPR, Joint General Comment on Ending Child Marriage, 2017, para 42. 46 Women Against Violence and Exploitation in Society and Child Welfare Society- Sierra Leone, Community Court of Justice of ECOWAS, Judgment no /ECW/CCJ/Jud/37/19, page 27-28. 47 As above. JN 19