proof for the reasons of his resignation. Thus the Complainants have failed to establish a case against the Respondent State. 118. The Respondent State submits that the relief sought by the Complainants is not sustainable because the Republic of Zimbabwe has complied with the provisions of the African Charter in letter and spirit by: • • • • • • • Enacting laws which improve Electoral transparency; See Section 182 of the Electoral Act [Chapter 2:13]; Rule 31 of the Electoral (Applications Appeals and Petitions) Rules 1995 Statutory Instrument 74A/95; Practice Directions of the Supreme Court No. 1 of 1993, relating to complaints on delays; Constitution of Zimbabwe Section 87 (1), 79B, 18 (10 and (14); Zimbabwe Electoral Commission Act No. 22/04, which Act established the Zimbabwe Electoral commission and independent Board responsible inter alia of the preparation and conduct of elections in Zimbabwe; Setting up the Electoral Court. The African Commission’s decision on the merits 119. In this Communication, the Complainants alleged violation of Articles 1, 2, 3, 7(1)(a), 7(1)(d), 13(1) and 26 of the African Charter. 120. The Complainants allege that Article 2 was violated in the sense that there was discrimination in the protection afforded and equality before the law, and that this failure by the domestic courts to protect the rights of the petitioners amounted to discrimination. The Complainants noted that if the Courts had dealt with the petitions and finalised them as envisaged by the petitioners, then the composition of Parliament would have been different and this would have altered the balance of power. This, in the opinion of the Complainants, is a ‘plausible ground for supporting the assertion of non-equality in the protection of the law and discrimination’. The Respondent State does not advance any arguments regarding the allegations of discrimination, but noted that all the parties to election petitions were afforded equal protection of the law. 121. To establish discrimination, it must be shown that, the Complainants have been treated differently in the enjoyment of any of the Charter rights by virtue of their race, ethnic group, colour, sex, language, religion, political or any other opinion, national and social origin, fortune, birth or any status. 122. The Complainants have failed to set forth with clarity any particular instance in which they were denied the enjoyment of any of the Charter rights by virtue of the reasons set forth in Article 2 of the African Charter. The claim under this head therefore fails. 123. The Complainants also allege the violation of Article 3 of the African Charter. This Article provides: ‘Every individual shall be equal before the law, and every individual shall be entitled to equal protection of the law. According to the Complainants, since the successful disposition of the petitions would have drastically altered the composition of Parliament, the failure of the Judiciary to deal promptly with those petitions is tantamount to the absence of equality before the law and equal protection of the law for victims of human rights violations. The State on its part cited a number of cases to demonstrate that both parties to the election petitions filed in the Zimbabwean courts were afforded equal protection of the law, and denied that the parties were discriminated against on the basis of political opinions. In fact, this position is confirmed through the analysis the Commission made 7 on the list of different petitions that were cited in the complaint submitted to the Commission. 124. Article 3 of the African Charter has two arms, one dealing with equality before the law, that is, 3(1), and the other, equal protection of the law, that is, 3(2). The most fundamental meaning of equality before the law or equality under the law is a principle under which each individual is subject to the same laws, with no individual or groups having special legal privileges. On the other hand, equal