unhindered. Further by exhibit "SB9? to the affidavit in support (being a letter from the Respondent to the Petitioner's Advocates), the Respondent does indirectly concede that some of the premises are not accessible to the orgainsation's members. This is stated in paragraph 3, inter alia, as follows; "The premises are government institutions such as schools and clinics and some premises are rented from churches, private individuals or institutions. This, therefore, puts the commission in a difficult position to be able to make alteractions or adjustments to such premises." (The underlining is the Court's for emphasis only.) The evidence of RW under cross examination also revealed that the Respondent conceded that it had overlooked the interests of the Petitioner, members of the organization and persons with disabilities in general. This is on issues such as acquiring special desks, ramps and officers with knowledge in sign language at the stations. Further, the argument by counsel for the Respondent discrediting the evidence in "SB6? on the ground that the Petitioner only visited twenty stations out of six thousand four hundred and fifty-six stations and that it is not a technical report is untenable. It is a matter of public notoriety that Lusaka town and province has some of the best facilities in the country. This is where the twenty stations audited are situated and as such since the said stations had flaws it must logically follow that the other stations based in towns outside Lusaka must have similar if not more flaws. As regards the argument that the report is unrealiable on the basis that it is not technical, this is answered in paragraph 7 of the Petition, where the Petitioner highlights the basis upon which the audit checklist was made. This, she stated was the United Nations Disability Manual. She also stated that in the year 2008, the organization trained its employees and agents on how to conduct such audits. The reports finding's are therefore credible. I now turn to determine the allegations made by the Petitioner in the light of the facts highlighted above. The first allegation made is that the Respondent has discriminated against the organization's members and persons with disabilities in general contrary to Article 23 of the Constitution as read with Section 19 of The Persons With Disabilities Act. The Article basically provides that a person shall not be discriminated in any manner by any person acting by virtue of any written law or performance of a function of any public office. On the other hand Section 19 of The Persons With Disabilities Act defines discrimination, thus; "(1) for the purpose of this part, "discrimination' means (a) treating a person with a disability less favourably from a person without a disability; (b) treating a person with a disability less favourably from another person with a disability (c) requiring a person with a disability to comply with a requirement or condition which persons without a disability may have an advantage over; or (d) not providing different services or conditions required for that disability." In carrying out its functions as mandated by the Article 76 of the Constitution, the Respondent is performing functions of a public office. It is therefore bound by the provisions of Article 23 not to treat those seeking to derive its services in a discriminatory manner. The evidence of PW, revealed that the services offered at the