laws, namely: the Constitution, National Policy on Disability 2004, the Antitrafficking in Persons Act, 2008, the Penal Code 1981 and Child Act 2009. 183. The Court takes cognisance of the Respondent State’s contention that it has put in place a special task force for investigating and prosecution of cases involving violence and killings of PWA. As the Respondent State has submitted, the make-up of the task force includes state attorneys, public prosecutions and the judiciary. However, the Respondent State has not demonstrated the effectiveness of the task force to curb the killings of PWA. 184. The Court notes that while the Respondent State has legal frameworks such as the Penal Code to tackle crimes, these laws are of general application and, this is not exceptional, insofar as such laws also exist in all States. Furthermore, the laws themselves do not constitute preventive measures, the implementation thereof would constitute a better protective measure as far as deterrence is concerned. International obligations of the Respondent State, as earlier expounded, demand that it undertakes other measures, including: concrete measures that would facilitate the implementation [of the laws], such as advocacy and the training of law enforcement personnel and judicial authorities, and continuous awareness-raising campaigns to demystify the superstitions and harmful beliefs. 185. The Court also recalls the testimony of the Respondent State’s witness that the period between 2008 and 2017 was the period of heightened attacks, mutilations and killings of PWA. This is practically an acknowledgement of the failure by the Respondent State to protect PWA. Also, it is noted that even though the Respondent State acknowledges that the attacks on PWA are systematically carried out in pursuit of financial gain, it has failed to formulate and implement an effective strategy that would ensure the protection of PWA. 44