282. During the public hearing, the Respondent State submitted that all the children who were in the centres have been reunited with their parents and are back to their homes. 283. The amici submit that the temporary shelters established by the Respondent State were not necessarily in the best interests of the child given that the children with albinism were removed from their families and placed in overcrowded shelters with inadequate facilities where there are incidents of child abuse. 284. The amici further submit that Article 9 of the CRC forbids the separation of a child from their parents against their will except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with the applicable law and procedures that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. 285. Finally, the amici submit that the children inside shelters were not provided proper contact with their families, leading to contact being lost entirely between parent and child. *** 286. Article 4 of the Children’s Charter provides: “[i]n all actions concerning the child undertaken by any person or authority the best interests of the child shall be the primary consideration.” 287. The Court observes that the issue herein is in relation to the situation of children with albinism in the shelters and whether it upheld the right related to the best interests of the children and subsequently upheld their dignity. 288. In this regard, the Court notes that the concept of the best interests of the child is “aimed at ensuring both the full and effective enjoyment of all the rights recognized in the Convention and the holistic development of the 65