or destroy the recognition, enjoyment or the exercise by women, regardless of their marital status, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in all spheres of life. 187. To determine whether a violation of Article 2 and 18(3) of the Charter have occurred, the Commission applies the commonly observed discrimination test. In Egyptian Initiative, the Commission applied the discrimination te t which enquires if similarly situated men and women were treat d differently and if that differential treatment was justifiable. Specifically, the Commission asked "Whether the women and male protesters had similar treatment; and whether the treatment was "fair and just", given that all women and men in the scene were under the same circumstances, that is, exercising their political rights." 121 188. The Commission decided that discrimination had occurred b cause: a. The Victims were exclusively women; b. The Victims were not protected from the perpetrators and other unidenhfted actors during the demonstrations; and c. The violations were perpetrated on the Victims because of their gender. 122 189. Fundamentally the Commission foun.d that the women had been discriminated against because they had been in a similar situation with men, only they were targeted and the Government of Egypt did not provide a justification for the differential treatment. 123 190. This same approach was adopted in Equality now where the Commission noted that '' ... the gravamen of discrimination is the unjustifiable distinction or differential treatment of persons in relevantly analogous situations." 124 Citing the findings of Egtjptian Initiative with approval, to esta · crimination in violation of Article 2 of the Charter, the Commissions cl: 147. The Complainant must identifiJ the compar, complained of and that of the comparator are com eatment 148. When such a case is made out, the Respon demonstrate with cogent evidence that the . It may actually 121 Para 129 122 Para 137 123 Para 138 124 Paragraph 144 48 ~==~