297. The Court further notes that the Independent Expert on the Enjoyment of Human Rights by Persons with Albinism also reported that: “reducing shelter populations is complicated by the absence of a registration and family-tracking strategy.” This is because some of the children were brought in during the height of the attacks, were brought without birth certificates.86 298. The Court observes that while the shelters were a noble and commendable act by the Respondent State to avert the attacks on children, it is clear that the long-term separation of parents as indicated by the amici is not in the best interests of the children with albinism. 299. The Court also notes that the shelters had inadequate food and beds and therefore were not habitable for children. This was corroborated by the Independent Expert who reported that some of the shelters were still “severely overcrowded” and did not have enough food supplies.87 300. Furthermore, the overcrowding of the shelters which are understaffed and where children suffer some abuse impacts further on their psychological suffering and therefore infringes on the best interests of the child. 301. In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the Respondent State has violated Article 4 of the Children’s Charter by failure to take into consideration best interests of the child in its shelters. iii. Alleged violation of the right to education 302. The Applicants argue that children with albinism suffer bullying, grievous assault and marginalization owing to their skin pigmentation and this has in turn led to many children dropping out of school. 303. The Applicants aver that children with albinism have not been provided with assistive devices to enable them to enjoy the right to education. Devices 86 87 Ibid, § 77. Ibid, § 79. 68