declaratory order in the circumstance of this case and the Court so declares as prayed for by the Applicant. As to the Applicant's second relief seeking an Order of the Court that the prohibitive policy be immediately revoked, this Court having held that the ban was imposed in violation of the rights of the affected teenage pregnant girls, hereby further orders that the impugned policy be immediately revoked by the Respondent by publication in both electronic and print media in all communities throughout the jurisdiction of the Respondent. As to the Applicant's third relief, the issues sought to be addressed by the said relief were not in issue before this Court and as such, the Court is bereft of power grant same. What is before the Court is the enforcement of right to education and freedom from discrimination and not the modalities for addressing the issue of teenage pregnancy as prayed for. There is a thin line between the mandate of this Court in the enforcement of human rights against member states based on their international commitments and obligations as against determination of propriety or otherwise of domestic administrative decisions, the latter rests with municipal courts of member states. As has already been held, education is a right and it is the responsibility of the State to ensure that both males and females are afforded equal opportunities to education without distinction. This responsibility the State has covenanted to do by being signatory to all International Instruments relating to education and human rights of the girl child. In the instant case, having declared the Respondent's action discriminatory, reliefs 4, 5 and 6 relating to the education of the girl child is within the competence of the Court to grant because doing so will add meaning to the right to education. The Court in the case of SERAP vs. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (supra), stated in paragraph 118 that: 30