discrimination as protected by the Charter and other regional and international instruments, including the African Children’s Charter. The Respondent State refers to some of the allegations in the said communication, including the allegation that girls in primary and secondary school who are found to be pregnant are expelled from school with no possibility of re-admission. 37. Furthermore, the Respondent State refers to another Application instituted before the East African Court of Justice, namely Reference No. 10 of 2020 Inclusive Development for Citizens and Center for Strategic Litigation versus the Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania, which it claims also raises similar allegations to the instant Application. 38. The Respondent State argues that under the circumstances, the instant Application cannot be admissible as similar allegations have been raised and are awaiting determination before another international forum with jurisdiction to determine it. The Respondent State submits that this Application is a fit case to apply the doctrine of res subjudice so as to prohibit two international courts of competent jurisdiction to simultaneously determine a matter raising similar allegations. * 39. The Applicants claim that the Rules do not recognise res subjudice as per Rule 50(2)(g) of the Rules which restates in substance Article 56(7) of the Charter. 40. The Applicants submit that the question of the illegality of the education ban premised on Regulation No. 4 of the Education Regulation (Expulsion and Exclusion of Pupils from Schools) and cemented by the public declarations as a government policy are yet to be determined by any forum of equivalent jurisdiction to the Court. 12