including forced labor or sexual exploitation." 42 The Complainants also refer to Article 5 and 7 of the United Nations High Commissioner For Human Rights Principles and Guidelines on Human Rights and Trafficking43; CEDAW's General Recommendation No 38 of 2020; Article 6(5), 6(6), 6(8), 9(2) of the Palermo Protocol; to elaborate the importance of an adequate Law enforcement in response to human trafficking. 116. In their second argument, the Complainants aver that the Respondent State has violated Articles 2 and 18(3) of the Charter and Article 2 of the Maputo Protocol by discriminating against the victim. They contend that the victim was subjected to human trafficking for sexual exploitation and that constitutes discrimination. The Complainants refer to CEDAW General Comment 35 of 2017 which interprets the non-discrimination clause to be a due diligence obligation in which States should be held responsible should they fail to prevent, investigate, punish and provide reparation in cases of Gender Based Violence (GBV). 117. The Complainants also request the Commission to "substantive equality approach to determine multiple-discrimination on the basis of sex, gender and age". Here, the Complainants submit that the Commission should abandon the "Comparator test" for discrimination and instead apply a test that is based on the victim's disadvantage, recognizing the systematic way in which women are subjected to sexual violence. 118. In their final submission, the Complainants seek a declaration from the Commission that the Respondent State violated Articles 2; 5 and 18(3) of the Charter and Articles 2; 4(2)(g) of the Maputo Protocol. The Complainants further appeal for the victim to be awarded $20 000 in compensation and $50 000 to cover medical costs. The Respondent State's submissions on the merits 119. TheRespondentStatesubmitsthatatallrelevant · Article 1 of the Charter and all its due diligence obl. ~ ~-f\4:>.11 liedwith ·t that the due diligence test the Commission ought to use is of diligence, responsibility or prudence exercised b the jurisprudence of the ECOW AS Court of Ju jurisprudence of the ECOWAS Court of Justice, 42 Article 3(a) 43 /2002/68/ Add.1 (2002). 44 IHRDA & WARDC (on behalf of Mary Sunday) v The Federal Republic of Nigeria 2018 25 " citing on the ·gence