226. The Applicants, relying on the Commission’s communication of John Modise v. Botswana aver that, exposing victims to personal sufferings and indignity violates the right to human dignity. According to the Applicants, the perceived devaluation of the life of PWA through the Respondent State’s inability to bring perpetrators to justice is a violation of their right to dignity. 227. The Applicants submit that Article 1 of the CRPD obligates States to promote the right to dignity of persons with disabilities and consequently, that since the Respondent State has not undertaken “immediate, effective and appropriate measures” in respect of PWA, it has violated their right to dignity as protected under Article 5 of the Charter. 228. The Respondent State contends that its Constitution recognizes the right to respect of inherent dignity and individual autonomy including the freedom to make one’s own choices. 229. According to the Respondent State, following the incidents of attacks, kidnapping and dismembering of bodies of PWA, it hosted PWA who were susceptible to such physical attacks in five schools. During the public hearing, the Respondent State submitted that the children who were in the schools received education alongside other pupils. Furthermore, that all the children have now been reintegrated into their families. 230. As regards health care, the Respondent State argues that, the Tanzania Health Policy provides for free medical care for marginalised groups including persons with disabilities. Furthermore, the Respondent State avers, that it collaborates with the Kilimanjaro Medical Clinic University College and the Standing Voice NGO, in setting up mobile health clinics in eight regions in Tanzania, every six months. 231. According to the Respondent State, in these clinics, PWA are given cryogenic treatment, supplied with sun hats, sunscreen and are also referred for surgery, where needed. Furthermore, that the Department of Persons with Disabilities formulates guidelines for protection of PWA. 53