44. Analysing the issue of the doctrine of the margin of appreciation and whether the Respondent State can justify its policy and practices of the expulsion of pregnant and married girls as well as mandatory pregnancy testing of schoolgirls, the Committee examines the meaning and scope of the doctrine- margin of appreciation. 45. The doctrine of the Margin of Appreciation is provided for in the preamble to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) as introduced by Protocol 15 which amended the preamble to the ECHR. The provisions require parties to the ECHR to follow the principle of subsidiarity, to exercise their primary responsibility to secure the rights and freedoms in the ECHR and the Protocols thereto, to engage in a margin of appreciation, subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). In essence, the Margin of Appreciation doctrine allows States leverage in the fulfilment of their obligations under the human rights instrument in a manner that does not defeat the promotion and protection of the rights of an individual.48 46. The doctrine of the margin of appreciation entails that States should have the discretion to interpret and apply some of the elements of the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights in fulfilling their obligations therein. 49 The European Court in the Handyside v The United Kingdom case indicated that article 10(2) of the Convention provides for a margin of appreciation for states in ensuring the right to freedom of expression50 as it provides for certain ground for the limitation of the right and certain conditions for the enjoyment of the right. Furthermore, it alluded to the fact that the margin of appreciation does not accord states unlimited power of appreciation but rather it is understood and implemented along with the ’European Supervision’.51 Furthermore, the Court explained that any margin of appreciation that states have should be applied for a legitimate aim and only if it is necessary for a democratic society.52 The Handyside case illustrates that the ECHR is the basis or the floor as the unqualified minimum guarantee of human rights which a State is not able to go below, an area which lies above the basis or floor, within which the State may elect to exercise discretion on condition that its decision is above the floor. 53 In this instance, the State Party may exercise its margin of appreciation as long as it is not violating its obligations or the rights under the ACRWC. 48 S. Greer, ‘The Margin of Appreciation: Interpretation and Discretion under the European Convention on Human Rights,’ Council of Europe, 2000, 5. 49 L.R. Helfer ‘Redesigning the European Court of Human Rights: embeddedness as a deep structural principle of the European human rights regime’ (2008) 19(1) European Journal of International Law 125 at 128. Yourow (1996) 13. See Holmer O ‘Decoding the margin of appreciation doctrine in its use by the European Court of Human Rights’ available at http://www.divaportal.org/smash/get/diva2:661681/FULLTEXT01.pdf 17- 26 (accessed 25 August 2022). Arai-Takahashi Y The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine and the Principle of Proportionality in the Jurisprudence of the ECHR (2002) 2. Kratochvil J ‘The inflation of the margin of appreciation by the European Court of Human Rights’ (2011) 29 Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 324 at 327. 50 Handyside v The United Kingdom, para 48. 51 As above, para 49. 52 As above. 53 Nanima, R. D. (2018). A critique of the jurisprudence of the African commission regarding evidence in relation to human rights violations: A need for reform? (Unpublished University of the Western Cape PhD Thesis) 186-187. JN 20