requires the Applicant to demonstrate that, being in the same circumstances, a person is treated differently from another person, to his/her disadvantage. (See the cases AGRILAND CO. LTD v. REPUBLIC OF COTE D'IVOIRE, Judgment No. ECW/CCI/JUD/07/15, pg. 14, § 46, THE NATIONAL CO-ORDINATING REPRESENTATIVES GROUP OF DEPARTMENTAL OF THE COCOA-COFFEE SECTOR (CNDD) v. COTE D'IVOIRE, CCJELR (2004-2009) pg. 31). 81. This position of the Court is supported by the jurisprudence of other international courts for the protection of human rights. (See European Court, case RATZENBOCK AND SEYDL y. AUSTRIA (Application no. 28475/12)). 82. In the instant case, the alleged ground for the discrimination is sex or gender. 83. As this Court observed in the case, DOROTHY CHIOMA NJEMANZE & 3 ORS v. THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA, JUDGMENT No. ECW/CCJ/JUD/08/17, pg. 40 that: “4 systematic operation targeting only the female gender provided evidence of discrimination”. (See also the case, MARY SUNDAY v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA, Judgment No. ECW/CCIJ/JUD/11/18, pg.5). 84. In the instant case, following the understanding of the case law cited, it is our understanding that the Applicant does not allege or demonstrate that the police department failed to investigate and prosecute those accused of the alleged rape due to the fact that the Applicant was a woman and that this position was generally and systematically taken whenever the victim was female. 21