84. In these circumstances, the Court finds that there is no basis to find a violation and therefore holds that the Respondent State did not violate Article 2 of the Charter. E. Alleged violation of the right to equality before the law and to equal protection of the law 85. The Applicant also alleges that the Respondent State violated his rights guaranteed by Article 3 of the Charter which provides for the right to equality before the law and the right to equal protection of the law. * 86. The Respondent State disputes the Applicant’s claims and submits that it did not violate the Applicant’s rights provided in the Charter and that he was convicted in accordance with the law. *** 87. The Court reiterates, as earlier stated, that the burden of proof for a human rights violation lies with the Applicant. In the instant Application, the Applicant alleges that the Respondent State violated his rights under Article 3(1) and (2) of the Charter, without expounding the basis thereof. 88. In these circumstances, the Court finds that the Applicant has failed to prove the alleged violation and holds that the Respondent State did not violate Article 3 of the Charter. VIII. REPARATIONS 89. The Court notes that Article 27(1) of the Protocol stipulates that “[i]f the Court finds that there has been violation of a human or peoples’ right, it shall 22