in person before the religious minister, (2) it does not provide for sanctions against a religious minister who performs marriage without verifying the parties' consent, (3) it is silent on the verification of consent by the religious minister in the event of the inability of either of the parties to do so and, (4) it does not lay down, for the religious minister, the procedures for verifying the consent of the parties. 88. The Applicants contend that the Respondent State confines itself to stating that the practical organisation of marriage celebration is left at any place and at any time to the discretion of the parties without adducing any argument to counter the above criticisms. *** S9.Article 6 (a) of the Maputo Protocol stipulates that: "states parties shallensure that women and men enjoy equal rights and are regarded as equal partners in marriage. They shall enact appropriate national legislative measures to guarantee that: a) no marriage shall take place without the free and full consent of both parties." 90.The Court notes that the Maputo Protocol in its Articles 2 (1) (a) and 6 and CEDAW in its Article 10 and 16 set down the principles of free consent in marriage. 91. The Court also notes that despite the fact that the said instruments are ratified by Mali, the extant Family Code envisages the application of lslamic law (Article 751) and entitles religious ministers to celebrate marriages, but does not require them to verify the free consent of the parties. 92. Furthermore, while sanctions are prescribed against the civil status officer for non-verification of the consent of the parties, no sanction is provided against a religious minister who does not comply with this obligation. Verification of consent given orally and in person is required before the civil status officer in accordance with Article 287 of the Family Code, whereas this obligation to verify is not required of a religious minister ),{e ry4 20 @--'