which may seem basic but are imperative to the learning of children with albinism, according to the Applicants, have not been supplied. These devices include: “glasses, magnifiers and special education equipment.” 304. The Applicants also allege that some students with albinism complain that they are unable to see the blackboard and they always have to sit under a shade. They argue that the right to education is also adversely affected due to the stigma and discrimination faced by the children with albinism. 305. The Applicants lastly argue that the classrooms in the shelters which the children of albinism were kept in for their security are overcrowded, do not have sufficient teachers and are unfit for purpose. 306. The Respondent State contends that Article 11(2) of the Constitution guarantees the right to education. Furthermore, that section 35 of the Education Act 1978 provides for compulsory education for children between the ages of 7 and 14. The Respondent State submits that the Education and Training Policy of 2014 and the National Disability Policy of 2004 provide for inclusive education. 307. The Respondent State also submits that it has undertaken the following affirmative measures towards the right to education: that children with disability are granted “a double capitation grant opportunity as compared to others”; persons with disabilities are given special consideration; PWA are provided with “wide hats, magnifying glasses and so on”; school fees for children with albinism for primary and secondary school have been waived; “early identification support of children with albinism in school” measures have been taken to ensure that adequate teachers with proper training are available; and students with albinism are given priority when choosing who attends boarding schools. 308. Furthermore, the Respondent State contends that students with albinism participate in different sports activities. Also, that the Respondent State in 69