47. In the Belgian Linguistic Case, the Court also highlighted that the nature of the right alleged to have been violated is a factor that should be taken into account in assessing the margin of appreciation.54 The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights has also adopted a similar approach whereby it has indicated that any form of restriction on a right provided under the African Charter on Human and Peoples‘ Rights has to be consistent with the Charter and States‘ obligation under human rights laws.55 The Committee notes that the Respondent State relies on Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. The United Kingdom case56 in arguing that it has even wider discretion in delivering on its positive obligations. The Committee notes that the European Court indeed alluded to the fact that States have wider discretion in fulfilling their positive obligation as due regard should be given to the specific circumstances of the persons involved.57 However, the Committee notes that the Respondent State relied on the case with the wrong understanding of the decision of the European Court. The case relates to legally settled immigrants in the United Kingdom who wish to be joined by their spouses. One of the allegations includes discrimination based on sex as the law of the United Kingdom made it easier for male immigrants to be joined by their partners than female immigrants. The European Court held that the discrimination on the grounds of sex on immigration issues which the United Kingdom attempted to justify was not construed within the ambit of the doctrine of the margin of appreciation.58 The European Court, in its jurisprudence, has also indicated that ’whenever discretion capable of interfering with the enjoyment of a Convention right is conferred on national authorities, the safeguards available to the individual will be especially material in determining whether the Respondent State has when fixing the regulatory framework, remained within its margin of appreciation’.59 48. The Committee notes that elements of article 11 in general and article 11(1) in particular leave no room for limitation or condition in the application of the rights provided, hence the argument of the Respondent State on the application of the margin of appreciation goes against the protected right of education under the African Children’s Charter. Moreover, article 11 (3)(d)(e) and 11(6), provide clear obligations by requiring State to take special measures in respect of girls and prevent drop-out of school as well as to support girls who fall pregnant while in school. Disregarding this obligation, the Respondent State has introduced policies and practices which exclude pregnant and married girls from public schools and has introduced mandatory pregnancy testing in schools the outcome of which results in expulsion with no reentry. These policies and practices are not contested by the Respondent State but rather defended on the grounds of morality. The Committee stresses that no argument 54 Case Relating to Certain Aspects of the Laws on the Use Of Languages in Education in Belgium v. Belgium (Application no 1474/62; 1677/62; 1691/62; 1769/63; 1994/63; 2126/64), 9 February 1967. 55 ACHPR, Civil Liberties Organisation (in respect of the Bar Association) v Nigeria [(2000) AHRLR 186 (ACHPR 1995)], para 16; Comm No. 212/98, Amnesty International v Zambia, para 50; Article 19 v Eritrea, para 92. 56 Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. The United Kingdom, 15/1983/71/107-109, Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights, 24 April 1985. 57 As above, para 67. 58 As above, para 78-83. 59 Oršuš and others V. Croatia, Application no. 15766/03, European Court of Human Rights, 16 March 2010, para 181-185. JN 21