v. The right to an effective remedy guaranteed under Article 7 of the Charter; and vi. The prohibition of sale, trafficking and abduction of children under Article 29 of the Children’s Charter. 113. The Court will examine each of these alleged violations successively. A. Alleged violation of the right to non-discrimination 114. The Applicants aver that the Respondent State has not adequately addressed the root causes of discrimination against PWA, in violation of Article 2 of the Charter. 115. Citing the communication in Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights and Institute for Human Rights v. Zimbabwe, the Applicants define discrimination as an: act which aims at distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference which is based on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status and which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by all persons, on equal footing, of all rights and freedoms. 116. According to the Applicants, the misconceptions and myths about PWA has led to stigmatization, discrimination, ‘right from birth and in their day-to-day activities.’ Moreover, the Applicants allege that acts of discrimination further curtail the ability of PWA to enjoy the right to inherent dignity and self-worth, prohibition against torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, as well as the rights to health and education. As an illustration, the Applicants submit that, the parents of one of its witnesses - Zainab Muhamed, a PWA, asked her to get rid of her daughter who was a PWA. 28