60. The [African] Commission is of the view that the Minister had no right to hinder or delay the execution of a final judgment without legitimate reason. The [African] Commission observes that the decision of the Minister was unjustified and that the Respondent State did not, at any time try to clarify to the [African] Commission the reasons for the refusal by its Officer. In this context, the [African] Commission supports the position of the European Court according to which even the inability of the Respondent State to pay could not justify the refusal by the Minister to execute a final judgment.2 61. Furthermore, the [African] Commission considers that the appeal provided for in Article 402 of the Administrative Procedure Code does not constitute a legal remedy which can be used by the complainant. The [African] Commission reiterates that local remedies, if any, should be legal, effective and not subject to the discretionary powers of the public Authorities. Concerning the appeal for annulment provided for in Article 410 of the Administrative Procedure Code, the [African] Commission is not convinced that it would have allowed the Complainant to gain satisfaction. Even a ruling by the Supreme Court setting aside the unjustified decision of the Minister would have given the Complainant the power to demand the execution of his judgment without however providing him with any means to enforce this ruling. Under these circumstances, the [African] Commission considers this remedy as ineffective. 62. In conclusion, even assuming that the above-mentioned appeals had enabled the complainant to recover his debt, the [African] Commission observes that the complainant had not been informed of the reasons underlying the decision of the Minister, a decision about which, moreover, he does not appear to have been notified. 63. For these reasons and considering the fact that the complainant had duly exhausted all local remedies, the African Commission declares the communication admissible. Merits 64. The Complainant alleges the violation of Article 2 of the African Charter which stipulates that "Every individual has the right to enjoy the rights and freedoms recognised and guaranteed in the present Charter..." and the violation of Article 3 of the African Charter which stipulates that "Every individual shall be equal before the law, every individual shall be entitled to equal protection of the law". 65. The Complainant contends that the Respondent State does not treat its citizens in the same manner and does not guarantee the total equality of its citizens before the law by leaving it to the discretion of the Minister of the Economy, Finance and the Budget to choose which judgments to honour. In support of his allegations, he alludes to the letter of the Permanent Secretary of the Minister dated 30th December 1999 which rejects, without justification, the request for execution of his judgment and those of two other people. 66. It is important to point out here that a judgment rendered in the presence of both Parties had jointly and severally condemned the Republic of Congo and the Mayor's Office of Brazzaville to pay the Complainant the amounts of 180,000,000 FCFA representing principal and 15,000,000 FCFA representing damages and interest, in compensation for the prejudice caused to his personal assets and property by the soldiers and officers of the national Police Force during the socio-political upheavals of 1993. Neither the Republic of Congo, nor the Brazzaville Mayor's Office lodged an appeal against the judgment, so that the latter became final on the 19th March 1997. On the 30th December 1999, with no apparent reason, the Permanent Secretary of the Minister of the Economy, Finance and Budget informed the Minister of Justice about his refusal to execute the judgment of the Complainant. 67. The Respondent State does not oppose the facts alleged in this communication but refutes the allegations of discrimination. It retorts that the three individuals affected by the Minister's refusal do not come from the same ethnic group or region nor do they share the same religion or political opinion. One of the individuals concerned is even said to be a former Minister of the Government who was actually holding office at the time of the rejection. Under the circumstances, the Congolese State contends that the communication constitutes an abuse of rights in terms of Rule 144(1)(c) of the African Commission's Rules of Procedure. 68. The two provisions cited by the Complainant repose, on the one hand, on the principle of non-discrimination and on the other, on that of equality. These principles mean that citizens should be treated in a fair and equitable manner before the law and have the right to enjoy, with no distinction whatsoever, the rights guaranteed by the Charter. The right to equality is all the more important since it determines the possibility for the individual to enjoy many other rights. 69. Like Article 14 5