different schools with less facilities and standards while their fellow men or boys who may have impregnated them go about and enjoy regular schools with better facilities and full curriculum. Such act of segregation is indeed discriminatory. Establishing separate schools for pregnant girls with equal standards is not in itself discriminatory if the rationale is to provide the essential health facilities and care that the pregnant girls in their precarious condition may need, but will definitely be discriminatory where the standards compared with the regular mainstream school are different as presented by the Applicant in paragraph 5.7 of its claim. This more so, where the affected girls are not given the opportunity to decide which of the schools to attend. Separating them in this instance is discriminatory and stigmatising and could be seen as a form of punishment for being pregnant. This is further supported by the fact that the Applicant submitted the statements of eight (8) witnesses attesting to the segregation and discrimination. Six (6) of the witnesses claimed to be victims. The brief of the Amicus Curiae is also instructive on this. It is, therefore, the finding of this Court that, from the facts as presented by the Applicant, there exists discrimination against pregnant school girls in Sierra Leone occasioned by the institution of the policy barring pregnant adolescent girls from attending mainstream schools. Consequently, the responsibility under 17(1), 18(3) & 25 of of the Child; Articles Respondent is in breach of its commitments and both local and international laws particularly, Articles 2, 3, the Charter; Articles 28(1) of the Convention on the Rights 1 & 3 of the Convention against Discrimination in Education and the Court so holds. 28