133. The Court observes that the right claimed by the Applicants is not guaranteed by Article 17(1) of the Charter, which provides that: “Every individual shall have the right to education”. Furthermore, Article 13(2)(c) of the ICESCR, which states that: “Higher education shall be made equally accessible to all, on the basis of capacity, by every appropriate means, and in particular by the progressive introduction of free education.” 134. The Court notes that access to higher education, as guaranteed by Article 13(2)(c) of the ICESCR, must be non-discriminatory and based on the individual ability of every citizen. 135. The Court further notes in this regard that while the Applicants allege violation of Articles 1 and 2 of the UNESCO Convention against discrimination in education,38 their claim actually revolves around Article 1 of the said treaty which provides: For the purposes of this Convention, the term `discrimination’ includes any distinction, exclusion, limitation, or preference which, being based on race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic condition, or birth, has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing equality of treatment in education and in particular: (a) of depriving any person or group of persons of access to education of any type or at any level; (b) of limiting any person or group of persons to education of an inferior standard; . 136. In light of the above provisions, the Court notes that the requirement to obtain prior approval to pursue further studies for one’s qualification to be recognised does not constitute a discriminatory act within the meaning of Article 1 of the UNESCO Convention against discrimination in education, insofar as it is a legal provision applicable to all police officers and there is nothing to indicate that this provision violates the right to education. 38 The Republic of Mali ratified the UNESCO Convention on 7 December 2007. 30