diligence of the Respondent State is assessed by the result it has achieved through the legislative and other measures it has taken concerning the respective issue. 101. The Respondent State, in this case, has taken legislative measures on the issues alleged, however, the measures are alleged to be regressive. The Respondent State has failed to harmonize its age of marriage and also has failed to prevent child marriage as already discussed above. In addition, the Respondent State has adopted the Education (Expulsion and Exclusion of Pupils from School) Regulations, 2002 G.N. No. 295 of 2002 which expels pregnant and married girls from schools. This policy does not discourage practices that hinder the realization of the provisions of the Charter. The Committee is of the view that the policy protects perpetrators as it outcasts and stigmatises victims of sexual violence including child marriage. The result of the policy is a clear violation of the provisions of the Charter as pregnant and married girls are deprived of their numerous rights in the Charter including their right to education and health services. 102. Regarding the limitation of rights argument alleged by the Respondent State, the Committee would like to refer to its previous findings stated above that the limitation imposed by the Respondent State is against the provisions of the Charter which ensure the right to education of pregnant girls, protection of children from harmful practices, and the right to sexual reproductive and health rights and services. Furthermore, the Committee in its abovementioned analysis has provided that such limitations are not justifiable or necessary as various alternative measures which ensure the protection of children can be adopted. Community engagement, making health services available such as contraception, prevention of child marriage, and investigation and prosecution of sexual abuse cases are among the few alternatives available. In undertaking any measure to implement the Charter, the Respondent State is not allowed to disregard its existing obligation under the Charter. From the reading of Article 1(2), it can be noted that the provisions of the Charter provide for the minimum standards to be adopted by States. Article 1(2) states ‘Nothing in this Charter shall affect any provisions that are more conducive to the realization of the rights and welfare of the child contained in the law of a State Party or in any other international Convention or agreement in force in that State.’ Therefore, the Charter serves as a minimum standard from which State Parties should not deviate but rather can go beyond in protecting children. 103. The Committee notes that the Respondent State has been informed about the violation of the rights of schoolgirls as a result of the practices raised in this Communication yet failed to rectify and take action by reviewing its policy. The joint letter of urgent appeal of the Committee and African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights that was sent to the Respondent State on 21 July 2017 with Ref: ACHPR/LPROT/SM/652/17 regarding the school attendance by pregnant girls and young mothers in the Respondent State is one of the notices that was given to the ACHPR, Association of Victims of Post Electoral Violence and Another v Cameroon (2009) AHRLR 47 (ACHPR 2009) para 110-111 ; De Cubber v Belgium, application 9186/80, European Court of Human Rights, judgment, 26 October 1984, para 35. JN 37