12;thatdespite these alarming statistics on child marriage, Mali has not taken appropriate measures to eradicate this phenomenon. 62. The Applicants recallthe relevant provisions of the Children's Charter, namely, Article 1(3) thereof, which provides that "Any custom, tradition, cultural or religious practice that is inconsistent with the rights, duties and obligations contained in the present Charter shall to the extent of such inconsistency, be discouraged"; Article 2 thereof, defines a child as "every human being below the age of 1g years,,and Article 21, which provides that "State Parties to the present Charter shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate harmful social and cultural practices affecting the welfare, dignity, normal growth and development of the child and in particular those customs and practices prejudicial to the health or life of the child; and those customs and practices discriminatory to the child on the grounds of sex or other status". 63. The Respondent State, in its Response, submits that the National Assembly of [\Iali, on 3 August 2009, enacted the Family Code which contains provisions compliant with the international commitments of Mali, but that this Code could not be promulgated following a"force majeure" which affected the process. 64. The Respondent State argues that, prior to the promulgation of the text by the President of the Republic, a mass protest movement against the Family Code halted the process; that the State was faced with a huge threat of social disruption, disintegration of the nation and upsurge of violence, the consequence of which could have been detrimental to peace, harmonious living and social cohesion; that the mobilisation of religious forces attained such a levelthat no amount of resistance action could contain it. 65. The Respondent State further argues that, in the circumstances, the Government was obliged to submit the text for a second reading, always involving lslamic organisations, which culminated in the Family Code of 2011, enacted by the National Assembly on 2 December 2011 and promulgated by the President of the Republic on 30 December 2011; that it was therefore unjustified to accuse the State of violating rights whereas the State was only sing the initial text in order to garner consensus and avoid unnecessary disruptions; and that the said revision comprises flexibilities which do not in (;)'--"" 4 15 E e