54. In the circumstances, the Court holds that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicant’s right to treated equally before the law and to equal protection of the law as guaranteed under Article 3 of the Charter. B. Alleged violation of the right to dignity 55. The Court will now consider the two claims which the Applicant alleges violated his right to dignity, namely: (i) the failure of the Court Magistrate (Justice of the Peace) to order investigations into the alleged cruel, inhumane; and degrading treatment resulting from the beatings administered by the police authorities and (ii) the allegation that he was beaten and brutalised by the police authorities. i. Allegation that the Justice of the Peace failed to order investigations into the Applicant’s alleged cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment 56. The Applicant avers that when he was presented before the Magistrate Court , the “Justice of the Peace” observed his wounds but failed in his duty to inquire into the circumstances of how he sustained the wounds and to order that he be taken for medical treatment before recording his statement. * 57. The Respondent State in response to this claim, avers that the duty of the Justice of the Peace is to record the statement of confession from the accused person and not to inquire into any other matter. The Respondent State further avers that the Applicant was “physically assessed and some wounds were noted on his body; although he did not tell the Justice of Peace how he got the wounds on his body. The Applicant had the duty to inform the Justice of Peace how he got the wounds on his body; but choose not to.” The Respondent State surmises that this was a mere afterthought by the Applicant that this Court should not entertain, since, the Applicant had an opportunity to raise it before the High Court and Court of Appeal during the trial. 15