legal and policy frameworks governing the issue of exclusion of pregnant girls and young mothers; orders to address the underlying issue of teenage pregnancies and inadequate sexual and reproductive education and health services. 55. The Court notes, in particular, the ACERWC’s decision in paragraph 109 where it is stated as follows: 109. Based on the foregoing analysis, the Committee finds the Respondent State in violation of its obligations under article 1 (obligation of states parties), article 3 (non-discrimination), article 4 (best interests of the child), Article 10 (protection of privacy) article 11 (education), Article 14 (health and health services), Article 16 (protection against child abuse and torture), and article 21 (protection against harmful social and cultural practices). The Committee, therefore, recommends for the Respondent State to: - Immediately prohibit mandatory pregnancy testing in schools and health facilities and publicly announce the prohibition; - Review the Education (Expulsion and Exclusion of Pupils from School) Regulations, 2002 G.N. No. 295 of 2002 and in doing so remove wedlock as a ground of expulsion and provide an indication that the moral ground of expulsion should be interpreted narrowly and should not apply in cases of pregnancy of schoolgirls; - Undertake concrete steps to prevent the expulsion of pregnant and married girls from schools including by providing laws and policies on the same; - Remove any policy of non-re-entry of schoolgirls including girls who have drop-out of school due to pregnancy or wedlock; - Immediately re-admit schoolgirls who have been expelled due to pregnancy and wedlock and provide special support programmes to compensate for the lost years and ensure better learning outcomes for the returned girls; - Provide clear guidance to school administrators that girls who drop out of school due to pregnancy or wedlock with their preference are allowed to come back to school with no preconditions; 16