149. The Court notes however, that, as per the standards set out under international human rights law as expounded above, addressing the root of the stigma and discrimination that PWA face requires the Respondent State to undertake intensive long-term awareness-raising campaigns with multiple stakeholders. These campaigns should be designed and conducted in a manner and with the purpose to impress on the society that PWA are human beings with innate dignity and who deserve the same treatment as any other human being. 150. The Court thus finds that even though the Respondent State has put up some measures to combat the discrimination against PWA, the measures are insufficient and that is why the myths about PWA are still widespread resulting in discrimination on the basis of the albinism. 151. In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the Respondent State has violated the right of PWA to non-discrimination under Article 2 of the Charter by failing to put up sufficient measures to combat myths and stereotypes relating to albinism. B. Alleged violation of right to life 152. The Applicants aver that the right to life is sacrosanct as all the other rights cannot be enjoyed by someone who is deceased. In addition, the Applicants submit that arbitrary deprivation of life results in irreparable harm as death is irreversible. 153. Referencing the Commission’s General Comments Nos. 3 and 4 on the Charter on the right to life (Article 4), the Applicants aver that responsibility for killings by non-state actors is attributable to the Respondent State where it fails to exercise due diligence to prevent such killings or ensure proper investigation and accountability. 154. Citing the European case of Osman v. United Kingdom, the Applicants submit that, where it is aware of a real and immediate risk to individual or 37