112. On the basis of the above, the Complainants submit that both the right to freedom from discrimination and the right to equality prohibits unequal treatment based on sex. 113. Finally, the Complainants submit that there is no objective or reasonable justification that has been offered for such difference in treatment, nor would a blanket denial to all first-born daughters regardless of their circumstances be proportional to any legitimate aim. This will be discussed in more detail in the justification section. 114. The Lesotho Appeal Court held th~t section 10 C?f the Chieftainship Act did not violate the prohibition of discrimirtation on, t'p.e basis of sex under section 18 of the Constitution, as the Constitutioµ pr,ovicled an exception for all matters related to customary law under section 18(4)(cf 115. This discrimination► the Complainants contend, that Ms. Masupha and similarly placed first-born daughters of chiefs are subjectecl. to is not supported by section 18(4)(c) of the Constitution of Lesotho, read with and interpreted subject to the limitations in section 4(1) of the Constitution. The Complainants also submit that Section 4 of the Constitution of Lesotho confers on every person in Lesotho, including ,Ms. Senate Masupha, the freedom from discrimination, and the right to' equal protection of the law, irrespective of sex or race, inter alia. Section 18 of the Constitution guarantees the right to freedom against discrimination and provides a list of exceptions to this right under section 18(4) including "for the applic;a,tion of the customary law of Lesotho with respect to any .matter in the case of persons who, under that law, are subject to that law". 39 Alleged violations of articles 3 of the African Charter and article S(f) of the Maputo Protocol , 116. The Complainants allege that first-born sons are given favorable treatment over first-born daughters under section 10 of the Chieftainship Act resulting in first-,b orn daughters being excluded from succeeding to Chieftainship, regardless of their circumstances. 117. They further allege that although given an opportunity on two separate occasions, both the Constitutional Court and the Lesotho Appeal Court in Lesotho have failed to reform section 10 of the Chieftainship Act in such a way that it is no longer discriminatory and can protect and promote the rights of women, as required under Article 8(f) of the Maputo Protocol.