127. The Court also notes that the Applicants do not meet the requirement of seniority under the above-mentioned articles. 128. It, therefore, dismisses the Applicants’ allegations and holds that the Respondent State did not violate their rights under Article 15 of the Charter and Article 7(c) of the ICESCR in respect of promotion to a higher category. D. Alleged violation of the right to education 129. The Applicants aver that the right to education enshrined in Articles 17(1) of the Charter, 13(2)(c) of the ICESCR and 1 and 2 of the UNESCO Convention against discrimination in education is an unconditional right afforded to every person who aspires to acquire knowledge for a better and brighter future. 130. They further submit that Article 125 of the Law of 12 July 2010 violates the right to education insofar as it requires police officers to obtain prior approval of their hierarchical head before enrolling in the national police academy in order to be promoted to a higher category, failing which the administration will not recognise the qualification obtained. ** 131. The Respondent State submits in its reply that the Law of 12 July 2010 only spells out the rules applicable to serving police officers who wish to pursue further studies for purposes of reclassification. 132. It further argues that it is within the Respondent State’s prerogative to determine how the training will be provided, by clarifying the requirements, without violating its international obligations. It submits, therefore, that the Court should dismiss the Applicant’s prayers. *** 29