violated, the Complainant argues that the fact that the Respondent State denies the Dioulas Ivorian nationality interferes with their right to access employment on a non-discriminatory basis. In Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights and Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe v. Zimbabwe, the Commission concluded that for the Respondent State to have closed down the offices of the Complainants and prevented their workers from going there deprives them of their source of revenue and, therefore, violates Article 15 of the Charter.53 Furthermore, the Commission concluded that there is a violation of the same provisions when, in Pagnoulle (for Mazou) v. Cameroon, the Respondent State refused to reinstate the Complainant as a magistrate when all the persons who suffered the same fate as him had been reinstated.54 It is evident from the above that the right protected under Article 15 refers to the prerogative to access employment as a source of income and to benefit from the same treatment as persons in a work situation and in similar circumstances.55 177. In the case in point, it is evident from the testimonies obtained by the Complainant that persons from the Dioula ethnic group have been declared as ineligible for public office for the mere fact that their Ivorian nationality which has been validly proven has been challenged. The reported cases include the denial of access or promotion in areas like the judiciary. The Commission notes that such forms of treatment constitute a violation as a result of the imposition of disqualification ensuing from the discriminatory and arbitrary denial of nationality. Consequently, these restrictions violate the provisions of Article 15 of the Charter for the persons concerned. It is also proper to conclude that there is a potential violation of the same right with regard to all Dioulas because they remain vulnerable as a result of discrimination in access to nationality. Violation of Article 18 178. Article 18 of the Charter obliges States Parties to protect families, to ensure their physical and mental health, to assist them, to ensure the elimination of every form of discrimination against women, to ensure the protection of their rights and those of children, as stipulated in international conventions. In Amnesty International v. Zambia, the Commission decided See Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights and Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe v. Zimbabwe Communication 284/03 (2009) AHRLR 235 (CADHP 2009) para 179. 54 Pagnoulle (for Mazou) v. Cameroon Communication 39/90 (2000) AHRLR 61 (ACHPR 1997) para 29. 55 See Essien v. The Gambia (2007) AHRLR 131 (ACHPR 2007) para 27. 53 57