a situation of "force maieure" is not consistent with the requirements of lnternational Law. 77.The Court also notes that Article 281 of the impugned Family Code effectively sets the marriage age at 18 for men and 16 for women. Furthermore, the Article also includes the possibility for the administrative authorities to grant special exemption for girls to be married at '15 years for "compelling reasons,,. 78.The Court holds in conclusion that it lies with the Respondent State to guarantee compliance with the minimum age of marriage, which is 18 years, and the right to non-discrimination; that having failed to do so, the Respondent State has violated Article 6 (b) of the Maputo Protocol and Articles 2, 4 (1) and 21 of the Children's Charter. B. Alleged violation of the right to consent to marriage 79.The Applicants allege that the impugned law, in its Article 300, entifles religious ministers, alongside civil registry officials to perform marriages but that no provision of this law provides for verification of the parties' consent by the religious ministers. 80.The Applicants further aver that Article 287 of the impugned law prescribes sanctions against any civil registry official who performs marriage without verifying the consent of the parties, but no sanctions are prescribed against defaulting religious ministers who fair to perform the verification. Applicants also submit that Article 283 of the same law specifies that consent must be given orally and in person before the civil registry official by each party 81 . The but that, that provision was not prescribed for religious ministers; the conditions that must be fulfilled by the civil registry officialto be able to celebrate a marriage without the presence of the parties are similarly not required of religious m isters 82.The Applicants contend that the way religious marriages are performed in Mali poses considerable risf, given that the marriages are forced, in as mu ch as 4 yr, ))-_ gy