of morality or margin of appreciation can justify a policy and practice which is against the explicit provisions of the Charter. Therefore, the Committee does not accept the justification of the Respondent State based on the doctrine of margin of appreciation. 49. The expulsion and the prohibition of re-entry of pregnant and married girls is another form of the perpetuation of the negative societal attitude towards the same group of girls including stigmatization and segregation that is deeply entrenched in most African communities. However, the Committee strongly believes that education should be used as a tool to address such negative attitudes and not perpetuate or conform to such attitudes. Furthermore, providing education to such disadvantaged groups should have been part of the education strategy of the State Party by providing them with the necessary support and affirmative action to overcome the disproportionate impact of their situations. Nevertheless, the Respondent State adopted a policy that excludes such disproportionally affected girls from education. Accordingly, the Committee finds the Respondent State in violation of article 11 of the Charter through its policy of expulsion of pregnant and married girls from schools as well as introducing a condition of mandatory/forced pregnancy testing to be enrolled in schools. Furthermore, the re-entry policy of the Respondent State is a violation of the right to education which requires the States to make education accessible to all. Alleged violation of article 3 of the ACRWC on the right to non-discrimination 50. The Complainants submit that the practice of forced pregnancy testing in schools; the expulsion of pregnant and married students; prohibition of re-entry after childbirth; and the illegal detention of pregnant girls violates girls’ right to equality and nondiscrimination based on various prohibited grounds including sex, age, health status (pregnancy), marital status, socio-economic status, and geographical location. The Respondent State argues that differential treatment is discriminatory only if it is based on proscribed grounds and servers no objective. The submission of the Respondent State provides that expulsion of married and pregnant girls serves the objective of deterrence of such behaviours which is against African values. Furthermore, the Respondent State submits that pregnancy testing is done on all teenage schoolgirls, hence, it is not discriminatory. 51. Regarding the alleged violation of article 3 of the ACRWC, the Committee focuses on analysing the following issues: - - If the expulsion of pregnant and married girls with no re-entry by the Respondent State can be justified within the scope of limitation of rights or if it amounts to discrimination under article 3 of the ACRWC; If the forced pregnancy testing of schoolgirls is discrimination under article 3 of the ACRWC; If the detention of pregnant girls is discrimination under article 3 of the ACRWC; and If socio-economic status and geographical location were grounds for discrimination based on the facts of the case and the meaning of article 3 of the ACRWC. JN 22