State assumed as it is directly responsible for actions of officials undertaken with public authority that result in violations. 293. The Court observes as noted earlier, that the issue that arises herein is whether the transfer of children with albinism and their stay at the temporary shelters was in accordance with their best interest. In this regard, of concern to the Court is whether the conditions in the shelter were suitable for the children to enjoy their rights and whether separation of the children from their families was conducted in a manner that would ensure that the children could be reunified with their families once the attacks had subsided. 294. The Court notes the Respondent State’s submission was uncontroverted by the Applicants that the children with albinism were transferred to temporary shelters to shield them from the attacks that were on-going at the time. 295. The Court acknowledges the Report of the Children’s Committee regarding a visit to one of the centres as follows: i. Most children were brought to the centres without birth certificates and some parents provided wrong information in order to conceal their identity which meant they were many children without family linkages; ii. The beds and food were severely inadequate; and iii. There were only a few staff to cater for the children and thus the centres “did not meet the standard to be habitable for children”. 296. The Court underscores that the best interest of the child requires that actions taken in relation to children should be conducted with an aim to ensure their best interests are promoted. The Court notes that the placement of the children in the shelters without birth certificates and also wrongful information provided a bottleneck to the future reunification of the children with their families. The Court notes that the Respondent State’s officials should have been vigilant to ensure that all the children were properly documented including information regarding their parents. 67