multiple rights guaranteed under the Charter. Accordingly, the Committee finds that the treatment of children on the basis of witchcraft accusations constitutes a violation of the principle of non-discrimination. 49. The Committee proceeds to determine whether the Respondent State bears responsibility for these violations and whether it has complied with its obligations under the Charter. In this regard, it is important to understand what the obligation of the Respondent State is in relation to the discrimination of children as a result of the practice of witchcraft accusation. The Committee notes State Parties’ obligation to protect children from discriminatory practices caused by third parties or nonstate actors. The Committee recalls its decision on Minority Rights Group International et al v Mauritania case where it held that States have the duty to protect children from violence caused by third parties which comes in two folds i.e. their responsibility to take preventive measures and their obligation to ensure effective remedy in cases violations occur.19 In the same case the Committee found Mauritania to be in violation of its obligation under the Charter for failure to take measures to protect the victims from discriminatory practices caused by non-state actors as well as for lack of due diligence in the investigation and prosecution of the perpetrators.20 50. The Committee notes that States have the duty to take legislative, administrative, budgetary, judicial, and other necessary measures to implement their duty to protect children from violations caused by anyone. The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights held the same position by providing that States have ‘the responsibility to ensure the effective application of the edict and thus ensure the freedom of its citizens, to carry out inquiries and initiate judicial action against the perpetrators of violations of the national legislation.’21 Accordingly, the Respondent State has to demonstrate the measures undertaken to prevent and redress the discrimination of children accused of witchcraft. The Committee finds that the measures demonstrated have to be in line with Article 1 of the Charter which outlines the obligation of States in fulfilling the rights therein which includes legislative and other measures as well as discouraging customs, traditions and practices that hinder the realisation of the rights under the Charter.22 The Committee in its General Comment No 5 on Article 1 of the Charter explained that the obligation to discourage practices inconsistent with the rights in the Charter entails a mapping exercise to identify practices that are potentially contradictory with the Charter and undertaking proactive measures to sanction, prosecute, and raise awareness.23 The General Comment further links the obligation to discourage such practices under Article 1(3) with Article 21 which prohibits harmful practices and elaborates that if a practice falls in the definition of harmful practices under 19 ACERWC, Communication No 007, Minority Rights Group International and SOS-Esclaves on behalf of Said Ould Salem and Yarg Ould Salem V. The Republic of Mauritania, para 62. 20 As above, para 64. 21 ACHPR, Malawi African Association and Others v Mauritania (2000) AHRLR 149 (ACHPR 2000), para 134. 22 ACRWC, Article 1 (1) and (3). 23 ACERWC, General Comment No 5 on Article 1 of the ACRWC on State Party Obligations and Systems Strengthening for Child Protection, p 52-53. 14