some measures to address violence unless the measures undertaken achieve the intended result of protection of rights51 or prevention of torture in this specific case. 79. With regards to efforts of redress through rehabilitation support, the Committee notes that the Respondent State has put in place various shelters which are established to cater for children who have been abused for various reasons. While acknowledging the system put in place in Akwa Ibom State, the Committee notes with concern that the lack of investigation of cases of witchcraft accusation denies access to rehabilitation and reintegration services of affected children. 80. The Committee further notes that the other measures of the adoption of the Child Act, the Disability Act and setting up of the Family Court are generic measures which are not directly aimed at addressing accusation of witchcraft against children or the torture resulting from the accusation. While the criminalization of witchcraft accusation is established in Akwa Ibom State criminal code, such legislative measures should be put in place in all States affected by the practice. Moreover, the two years’ imprisonment in the law is not sufficient to respond to the seriousness of the abuse and torture children are facing on accounts of witchcraft accusation. 81. In this regard, the Committee finds that the Respondent State has not undertaken sufficient measures to pursue the reports, prosecute and investigate the violence against children accused of witchcraft with due diligence, which amount to failure to prevent and address torture and abuse against children. Therefore, the Committee finds the Respondent State to be in violation of Article 16 of the Charter. Alleged violation of Article 11 on the right to Education 82. The Complainants allege that children accused of witchcraft have no access to education due to stigmatization and child labour. They allege that the hazardous work they are subjected to due to accusation of witchcraft denies them the right to access free and compulsory education. The Respondent State argues that it has adopted the Free Universal Basic Education Act, 2004 which provides for free, compulsory, and basic education. It also stipulates for the obligation of caregivers to ensure that children complete primary education the failure of which has sanction. The Respondent State also argued that 15 children who were affected by witchcraft accusation have received education up to tertiary level. 83. The issue for determination is whether witchcraft accusations hinder access to education and whether the State has taken adequate measures to address this. 84. Article 11(1) of the Charter states that ‘Every child shall have the right to an education’. The Committee’s General Comment on Article 11 clarifies that ‘every child’ is an inclusive phrase which requires States to ensure that all children access education irrespective of any status including disability.52 The General Comment states that Article 11(1) ‘envisages an obligation on States to identify children who are out of school, assess the factors that lead to non-enrolment or dropout, and 51 ACERWC, Communication No 007/com/003/2015, Minority Rights Group International and SOSEsclaves v the Republic of Mauritania, 2017. 52 ACERWC, General Comment No 9 on Article 11 of the ACRWC on the Right to Education, para 19. 24