17     programmes, involving bursaries, vocational skills training and capital provided to start Income Generating Activities (IGAs) and the “Go to school, back to school, stay in school” campaign, that were aimed to help 1.3 million children get primary education in the country’s conflict-affected north and northeast. As observed first hand by the Committee, this does not mean that there is no room for improvement. For instance, in 2004, the Uganda Human Rights Commission identified that providing sufficient facilities for the education of disadvantaged communities including those affected by conflict”24 as one of the main challenges in providing a universal free and compulsory primary education. 67. The use of schools for military purposes (for instance, as recruitment grounds, military barracks, command centres, weapons storage facilities, firing and observation positions, and detention and interrogation sites) puts children at risk of attack and hampers children’s right to education.25 This is because, as a result of these actions, schools may be considered legitimate targets for attack. Attacks against schools may constitute crimes against humanity and war crimes, and the Rome Statute extends explicit jurisdiction for criminal accountability for these actions (or failures to protect). In addition, as part of customary international law, the principle of distinction under international humanitarian law demands that educational facilities are protected as long as they are civilian objects.26 68. Despite the alleged violations argued by the Complainants highlighting incidents where the UPDF allegedly occupied and used schools for military purposes, the African Committee has not found evidence to support these allegations. After a detailed look into the allegation of indiscriminate attacks on schools by the UPDF, the Committee has not found evidence (oral, physical and written) to fault the margin of appreciation with which the State planned and conducted its military operations that could qualify as an “indiscriminate attack on schools”. 69. Furthermore, the African Committee subscribes to the view that while the right to education, particularly in the context of armed conflict, entails that a “State has a duty to be continually taking measures to build, maintain, improve and when attacked, repair its educational system”, it also confirms that, based on the African Children’s Charter, and international law, the threshold under which the fulfillment or violation of these obligations are to be assessed should be based on a “reasonableness” standard.27 70. Therefore, before establishing whether the Government of Uganda has violated its                                                                                                                 24 UHRC, 2004, 7th Annual Report to Parliament of Uganda, 138, Kampala. In its resolution 1998 (2011), the Security Council expressed deep concern over attacks and threats of attacks against schools and educational personnel, calling upon all parties to cease such violations. 26 The word ‘object’ is used by the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols to mean something that is visible and tangible. For further details on this see, Education Above All and British Institute of International and Comparative Law “Protecting education in insecurity and armed conflict: An international law handbook” (2012), pp 192-196. Although not mentioned in the text of Common Article 3 nor Additional Protocol II, the concepts of civilian and military object apply to non-international armed conflict as part of customary international law. 27 UNESCO, Protecting Educational from Attack: A State-of-the-Art Review (UNESCO, 2010), 165. 25