sexual relations among adolescents is not an internationally recognized obligation of the State. Countries in Africa have different ages for sexual consent ranging from 12 years to 18 years. Moreover, the Committee has taken a position that consensual and non-exploitative sexual relations among adolescents should be decriminalized. 73 Furthermore, the exclusion of pregnant and married girls from schools with no opportunity for re-entry creates a vicious cycle of gender-based discrimination as these girls will be excluded from the benefits of education. This is because education is not only a substantive right, but the enjoyment of the right to education also facilitates the realization of other rights of children and the elimination of discrimination against girls.74 Additionally, article 1(f) of the Maputo Protocol provides that discrimination against women includes any form of discrimination against women from the enjoyment of their rights regardless of their marital status. Therefore, the expulsion of pregnant and married girls with no re-entry amounts to discrimination based on sex, marital status, and health status (pregnancy) within the meaning of article 3 of the ACRWC, and further entrenches gender-based discrimination. 56. Concerning the issue of the mandatory pregnancy testing of schoolgirls, the Committee believes that it is a differential treatment based on sex as the mandatory testing and the subsequent expulsion target only girls. Mandatory pregnancy testing is differential treatment on the ground of sex and interferes with the right to education, the right to privacy, and the health of girls among others. Moreover, the mandatory pregnancy testing presumes that all girls who fall pregnant have committed an immoral act which is a perpetuation of structural gender-based discrimination which subjects girls to scrutiny on their sexuality although they are victims of sexual abuse. Hence, mandatory pregnancy testing also amounts to discrimination under the scope of article 3 of the Charter. 57. Regarding the detention of pregnant girls, the Committee has found that the detention is occurring to question pregnant girls about who impregnated them (see the finding of the Committee on the alleged violation of article 16 of the ACRWC). The Committee also notes that the detention of pregnant girls is discrimination based on their gender, age, and health status (pregnancy) as they are being targeted on these grounds while having committed no crime. 58. On the issue of discrimination on the grounds of socio-economic status and geographic location through the denial of re-entry of pregnant and married schoolgirls, the Committee notes that the Complainants argue that the result of the policy disproportionately affects girls living in economically disadvantaged families, as well as rural and remote areas. While the Committee is cognizant of the structural discrimination against children living in economically disadvantaged, rural and remote areas, in this present case, the Respondent State has not subjected children living in economically disadvantaged or rural and remote areas to differential treatment of any kind. The expulsion and non-re-entry of pregnant and married girls as well as the 73 ACERWC, General Comment No. 7 on article 27 of the ACRWC, para 50. 74 CESCR, General Comment no. 13 on the right to education, UN Doc. E/C.12/1999/10, 8 December 1999; CEDAW, General Recommendation no. 36 on the right of girls and women to education, UN Doc. CEDAW/C/GC/36, 27 November 2017. JN 25