50. The Court considers, however, that both cases can be qualified as instances of public interest litigation. As the Court has established in its jurisprudence, the identity of parties in different Applications can be considered as being similar to the extent that they both aim to protect the interest of the public at large, rather than only specific private interests.10 51. Accordingly, the Court holds that the criterion of “same identity” of the parties has been met. 52. The second criterion concerns the similarity of the subject-matter of the applications. When considering the subject-matter of the applications, it becomes apparent that both applications challenge the same law, that is Regulation No. 4 of the Education Regulations (Expulsion and Exclusion of Pupils from School) of 2002, and the same practice of excluding pregnant and young mothers from schools as well as other associated discriminatory practices, including mandatory pregnancy testing. 53. In the application before the ACERWC, the Applicants also claim, among others, that the right to non-discrimination and the right to education, is violated, as enshrined in Articles 3 and 11, respectively, of the African Children’s Charter. In their Communication they also argue that, in accordance with Article 46, the African Children’s Charter should be interpreted with reference to the African Charter, the Maputo Protocol, the CRC as well as other international human rights instruments. Specifically, and in relation to the present Application, the Applicants before the ACERWC refer to Article 2 (right to non-discrimination) and 17 (right to education) of the Charter as corresponding Articles to guarantee children’s right to non-discrimination and to education. 54. From these applications it also emerges that the same reliefs are sought, namely the establishment of a violation of the same provisions enshrined in the above-mentioned human rights treaties; orders to change the same Suy Bi Gohore Emile & 8 Others v. Republic of Cote d’Ivoire, ACtHPR, Appl. No. 044/2019, Judgment of 15 July 2020 (merits and reparations), § 105. 10 15