no conditions attached to this principle which could dilute its scope, reach or standard of application.’80 70. The Committee notes that the determination of the best interests of the child requires an in-depth consideration of the multiple competing elements and interests of each child concerned. The best interests of the child are three-fold in that it is a substantive right, an interpretative principle, and a rule of procedure.81 The principle of the best interest of the child should guide the interpretation of all the rights in the Charter.82 As a rule of procedure, article 4(2) of the Charter pertains in this instance to the expulsion of a pupil from school as an administrative proceeding and requires that a child implicated in such proceedings must be allowed to have their views heard. This is a core component of the best interests of the child as a procedural rule, which- at a minimum- requires the consideration of the impact on the child concerned before making decisions which affect them.83 It follows that a child forced to have a pregnancy test and then expelled as a result is rendered extremely vulnerable to further violations of their civil, economic, social, and cultural rights. 71. Considering the practice of forcing schoolgirls to undergo mandatory pregnancy testing in schools, it is trite that any form of testing that a child is forced to undergo cannot be in that child’s best interests. From the evidence provided in the affidavits and the Complainant’s submissions on the merits, it is shown that no efforts were made to obtain the views of nor to provide information to the girls before these mandatory pregnancy tests were conducted. Children- when in situations where their health and well-being are implicated- should be provided ‘with adequate and appropriate information to understand the situation and all the relevant aspects concerning their interests, and be allowed, when possible, to give their consent in an informed manner.’84 The Complainants further submitted that the procedure was painful and traumatic for some girls, including some of the Deponents of the affidavits. The practice of mandatory pregnancy testing has also been shown to involve publicly announcing results- in cases where the child was found to be pregnant- to shame the child concerned. Beyond mandatory testing being a clear violation of article 4 of the Charter, this practice is a violation of this provision at every point in the process through which mandatory pregnancy testing is undertaken, including the events before and after the test. The entire practice should thus be eliminated. 72. In addition, the practices of expelling girls from school due to pregnancy or marriage, and subsequently denying these girls re-entry to school are also contended as being a violation of article 4 of the ACRWC. Article 4 of Tanzania’s Education Regulations (Expulsion and Exclusion of Pupils from Schools) of 2002 stipulates: ‘Article 4: expulsion of a pupil from a school may be ordered where— a) the persistent and deliberate misbehaviour of the pupil is such as to endanger the general 80 ACERWC, General Comment No. 5, para 4.2. 81 UNCRC, General Comment No. 14, para 6. 82 ACERWC Communication No. 007/Com/003/2015, Minority Rights Group International and SOSEsclaves on behalf of Said Ould Salem and Yarg Ould Salem V. The Republic of Mauritania, para 66. 83 UNCRC, General Comment No. 14 para 6(c). 84 UNCRC, General Comment No. 14, para 77. JN 29