arrangements may be employed to ensure the first Complainant as well as any other female heir may be succeeded by someone from their father's bloodline. The Commission therefore takes the view that the discriminatory law and practice of excluding eldest-daughters from succession is disproportionate to the objective of retaining the chieftaincy in their deceased father's bloodline. 153. It is prudent to revisit the findings of the Commission in Constitutional Rights Project and Others v Nigeria to the effect that: The justification of limitations must be strictly proportionate with and absolutely necessary for the advantages which follow. Most important, a limitation may not erode a right such that t~e 'right itself becomes illusory. 52 154. In view of the foregoing, the Commission considers that the operation of S10 of the Chieftainship Act and its interpretation in the decision of the Court of Appeal unjustifiably discriminates against the 1st C:omplainant and eldest daughters of chiefs broadly speaking, on the basis of their sex and gender. Further, the Commission takes the view that its continued application and consistent reiteration as illustrated by the C9urt of Appeal's judgment is compelling evidence of the Respondent State's failure to eliminate all forms of discrimination against women in the Kingdom of Lesotho as observed in Article 2 of the Maputo Protocol. 155. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the Respondent State has violated Articles 2 and 18(3) of the Charter and Article 2 of the Maputo Protocol. Alleged Violations of article 3 .of the African Charter and article B(f) of the Maputo Protocol 156. Article 3 of the Charter provides for the right to equality as follows: "(1) Every individual shall be equal before the law. (2) Every individual shall be entitled to equal protection of the law." 157. The Commission observes that article 8 of the Maputo Protocol further outlines the steps States must take to ensure women's fundamental right to equality: 52 {2000) AHRLR 227 {ACHPR 1999), para 42