where girls fall pregnant due to sexual abuse or incest even in cases where police reports can be produced to that effect. 5. The Communication further alleges that married girls are not allowed to register or remain in school once married and this is vividly provided by Section 7(b) of the Respondent State’s Regulation on Expulsion and Exclusion of Pupils. The Complainants submit that the Education (Imposition of Penalties to Persons who marry or Impregnate a School Girl) Rules 2003, G.N. No. 265 of 2003 penalizes anyone who marries or impregnates a schoolgirl. The Communication highlights that this contradicts the laws of the Respondent State as the Marriage Act allows girls as young as 14 to get married. The Communication also indicates that there is a court decision which rules against setting the age of marriage for girls below 18 as unconstitutional but has not entered into force due to an ongoing appeal on the decision of the High Court. 6. Moreover, the Complainants allege that the expulsion and exclusion policy of the Government is permanent as schoolgirls are not readmitted to the public school after delivery. School girls expelled due to pregnancy or marriage can only be readmitted to private or vocational training schools. The Complainants further allege that these options are not always accessible or limit the education path girls wish to pursue. While noting that since 2014 the Education and Training Policy has incorporated a provision which provides that students who left school for any reason should be readmitted, the Complainants submit that this has never been implemented. The Communication also submits that statements by high-level officials of the Respondent State, including the then President, have alluded to the fact that the Government of the Respondent State will intensify its effort to expel students who fall pregnant and to ensure their non-readmission to schools. The Complainants also submit affidavits of girls who have been denied to re-enter school after giving birth due to the statements of the officials, mainly the President. 7. The Communication includes facts that school personnel usually report pregnancies as the Child Act and the Ministry of Education Rules prescribe penalties against those who impregnate girls. The Complainants submit that such reports subject girls to unlawful detention or harassment as they are often detained or harassed until they expose the identity of the person who impregnated them. Furthermore, the Communication alleges that girls who fall pregnant due to sexual abuse are exposed to the same risk of detention and harassment, subjecting them to secondary victimisation. The Complainants refer to the assessment undertaken by the Tanzanian Commission on Human Rights and Good Governance to allege that children are detained in harsh conditions, denied visits by caregivers, and subjected to delayed case hearings. The Communication, therefore, asserts that girls are being detained when they refuse or are unable to testify against who impregnated them, although being pregnant by itself is not provided as a crime. The Communication cites the statement of the Regional Commissioner, who ordered regional and district commissioners of education to arrest pregnant girls who refused to identify the person who impregnated them. Following the order, the Communication alleges 55 pregnant schoolgirls were arrested in Tandahimba District. Such practices and policies discourage pregnant girls or parents from seeking information or assistance, including JN 4