self-reliance and full participation in community.31 The report of the Commission of Inquiry in 2011 found that children with physical and intellectual disabilities are among the group of children who are prone to abuse along with other vulnerabilities.32 The Committee also received information that disability may be one of the grounds for accusation of witchcraft in the Respondent State. The discriminatory nature of the practice of witchcraft accusation based on various grounds including disability is a violation of Article 3 which the Committee has established above. The Committee notes that, while disability may constitute one of the grounds for witchcraft accusations, the Complainants have not sufficiently demonstrated that the Respondent State has failed to adopt specific measures required under Article 13 that directly resulted in the violations alleged. Considering that Article 13 is on special measures rather than discrimination, the Committee notes that the claim is more appropriately addressed under Article 3, insofar as it concerns discrimination on the basis of disability. For the Committee to find a violation on Article 13, sufficient evidence on lack of measures for children with disabilities needs to be established and alleged. However, the present case alleges discrimination of children with disabilities which the Committee adequately addressed under the alleged violation of Article 3. 55. For the forgoing reasons, the Committee finds that the Respondent State in violation of its obligation under Article 3 on non-discrimination failing to prevent and prosecute the discriminatory practice of witchcraft accusation against various groups of children, including those with disabilities. Alleged violation of article to Article 5 (1) on the right to life 56. The Complainants argued that children are killed either by parents, community members, or by religious leaders in the process of extracting confessions of witchcraft or to ‘drive out’ alleged spirits. They further submit, children accused of witchcraft are subjected to degrading treatment including ‘poisoning, burning and buried alive. The Complainants claim that the Respondent State has failed to protect children from death resulting from accusations of witchcraft and has failed to investigate and prosecute those responsible for the killings. The Respondent State argued that the State has sufficiently taken appropriate steps in protecting the lives of people within its jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Respondent State has argued that there is no evidence of children that were buried alive on the account of witchcraft allegations as alleged by the Complainants. 57. The issues for determination by the Committee regarding the alleged violation of Article 5(1) is whether, in the circumstances of the present Communication, the Respondent State has failed to take adequate protective measures in respect of the children accused of witchcraft to ensure the protection of their right to life. 58. The Committee recalls that under Article 1(1) of the Charter, States Parties undertake to recognize the rights, freedoms, and duties enshrined therein. By 31 ACRWC, Article 13(1). 32 The Government of Akwa Ibom State of Nigeria, Report of Commission of Inquiry on witchcraft accusation and child rights abuses, June 2011, page 46. 17