are generally celebrated without the presence of the parties; that the marriages consist in the two families exchanging kola nuts in the presence of a specialist of the Muslim religion; that even if these marriages are performed in the mosque, the presence of women is not required; that this practice, combined with traditional attitudes which encourage the marriage of the girl at puberty, is fraught with considerable risk as the marriages are performed without the consent of the girl. 83.The Applicants conclude from the foregoing that by enacting a law that permits the maintenance of the marriage customs and traditions that do not allow for the consent of the parties, the Respondent State has violated its commitment under Article 6(a) of the Maputo Protocol and Article 16 (a) and (b) of CEDAW. 84. !n its Response, the Respondent State refutes this atlegation. lt argues that paragraph 1 of section 283 of the Family Code makes it clear that there is no marriage when there is no consent; that furthermore, section 300 of the same Family Code makes it clear that marriage is publicly celebrated by the religious minister subject to compliance with the substantive conditions of marriage and the prohibitions enshrined by the Family Code; that these constitute guarantees of compliance with the obligation to ensure the consent of prospective spouses before any marriage celebration. 85. With regard to the practical organisation of marriage celebration, the Respondent State indicates that, at any place and at any time, it is left to the discretion of the prospective parties who may celebrate their marriage inside a mosque, in their families or at a civil centre with the sole condition to respect public order and the law. 86.The Respondent State further contends that another guarantee of compliance with the conditions is laid down in Sections 303 (3) and (304) which regulate the validity of the marriage celebrated by a religious minister, the transmission of the marriage certificate to the civil registrar and its registration in the Civil Register. 87.ln their Reply, the Applicants recall that the criticisms against the extant 2011 Family Code are that: (1) it does not prescribe that consent be given orally and \Y 19 s EuP,