Given the treatment Mr Meldrum was exposed to, would it be argued as the Respondent State does, that he was able to access the courts and therefore was given equal protection of the law? 96. The most fundamental meaning of equality before the law under Article 3.1 of the Charter is the right by all to equal treatment under similar conditions. The right to equality before the law means that individuals legally within the jurisdiction of a State should expect to be treated fairly and justly within the legal system and be assured of equal treatment before the law and equal enjoyment of the rights available to all other citizens. Its meaning is the right to have the same procedures and principles applied under the same conditions. The principle that all persons are equal before the law means that existing laws must be applied in the same manner to those subject to them. The right to equality before the law does not refer to the content of legislation, but rather exclusively to its enforcement. It means that judges and administration officials may not act arbitrarily in enforcing laws. 97. Factual patterns that are objectively equal must be treated equally. Thus, it is expected that if the law requires that all those who publish offensive articles against the government be brought before a judge for questioning, and if found guilty, sentenced or pay a fine, this law should apply to all those subjected to it, including nationals and non nationals alike. 98. In the present communication, that does not seem to be the case, because the victim is a nonnational, the Respondent State chose not to treat him as it would have treated nationals. It is very unlikely and impractical that if a Zimbabwean had published the same article the victim published, he/she would have been treated the same way. In the opinion of the Commission therefore, the Respondent State violated Article 3.1 of the Charter. 99. Equal protection of the law under Article 3.2 on the other hand, means that no person or class of persons shall be denied the same protection of the laws which is enjoyed by other persons or class of 8 persons in like circumstances in their lives, liberty, property and in their pursuit of happiness. . It 9 simply means that similarly situated persons must receive similar treatment under the law. 100. In its decision in Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights and the Institute for Human Rights and 10 Development [in Africa]/Republic of Zimbabwe , this Commission relied on the Supreme Court 11 decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka , in which Chief Justice Earl Warren of the United State of America argued that ‘equal protection of the law refers to the right of all persons to have the same access to the law and courts and to be treated equally by the law and courts, both in procedures and in the substance of the law. It is akin to the right to due process of law, but in particular applies to 12 equal treatment as an element of fundamental fairness. 101. In order for a party therefore to establish a successful claim under Article 3.2 of the Charter, it should show that the Respondent State had not given the Complainant the same treatment it accorded to the others. Or that, the Respondent State had accorded favourable treatment to others in the same position as the Complainant. 102. In the present communication, the Commission notes that the Respondent State treated the victim in a manner which denied him the opportunity to seek protection of the courts. Due process which was key to ensuring remedy to the deportation, and therefore the protection of the rights of the victim were denied through the arbitrary actions of the Respondent State. The African Commission therefore finds that the Respondent State violated Article 3.2 of the African Charter. Alleged violation of Article 7 (1) (a) and (b) 103. The Complainants argue that the deportation of Mr Meldrum violated Article 7.1.a (a) and 7.1.b. Article 7.1 of the Charter provides that ‘Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises a) The right to an appeal to competent national organs against acts violating his fundamental rights as recognised and guaranteed by conventions, laws, regulations and