protection of the law under 3(2) relates 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 the law, but in particular, applies to equal treatment as an element of fundamental fairness. 8 125. In its decisions on communication 211/98 – Legal Resources Foundation v/ Zambia, the Commission makes this distinction even clearer by linking the principle of discrimination to that of equal protection of the law. This Commission held in that communication that ‘Article 2 of the Charter abjures (sic) discrimination on the basis of any of the grounds set out, among them “language… national or social origin, birth or other status…” The right to equality is very important. It means that citizens 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. The right to equality is important for a second reason. Equality or lack of it affects the capacity of one to enjoy many other rights. For example, one who bears the burden of disadvantage because of one’s place of birth or social origin suffers indignity as a human being…’ 126. In terms of Article 60 of the Charter, this Commission can also be inspired in this regard by the 9 famous case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, in which the Chief Justice of the United State of America Earl Warren 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 10 particular applies to equal treatment as an element of fundamental fairness. 127. In order for a party to establish a successful claim under 3(2) of the Charter therefore, it must show that, the Respondent State had not given the Complainants 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 Complainants. 128. In the present Communication, the Commission has examined the evidence submitted by both parties and is of the view that the Complainants have not demonstrated the extent to which the Courts treated the petitioners differently from the Respondent State, or vice versa, to the extent that their rights were violated. The Commission thus does not find the Respondent State to have violated Article 3 of the African Charter. 129. The Complainants allege violation of 7(1)(a) and 7(1)(d) of the African Charter. This Article provides: “Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises: 1(a) ‘the right to an appeal to competent national organs against acts violating his fundamental rights recognised and guaranteed by conventions, laws, regulations and customs in force’ and (d) ‘the right to be tried within a reasonable time by an impartial court or tribunal. ’ 130. It should be noted that even though the matter before the Commission is a civil matter, the principles enshrined under7(1) still apply in the consideration of this matter, that is, the principles to have one’s cause heard and the principle to have one’s matter decided within a reasonable time. 131. The Complainants argue that the inordinate delay in dealing with petitions affects the right to have one’s case heard within a reasonable time (right to due process of law). They refer to General Comment No. 13 of the United Nations Human Rights Committee (HRC) where the HRC held that the right to have one’s case heard within a reasonable time includes not only the time by which the trial should start, but also the time by which it should end, and the judgment rendered both in first instance and on appeal. In their view, the right to due process of law has been violated as the courts have failed to rule on the electoral petitions within a reasonable period of time. It is also alleged that appeal to the High Court and the Supreme Court was ineffective. 132. On its part, the Respondent State cited several cases to demonstrate that it has always afforded the Petitioners the right to be heard by impartial courts or tribunals within a reasonable time. The Respondent State contends further that all the petitions filed in the High Court and more recently, in the Electoral Court were heard within a reasonable time. The State cited Rule 31 of the Electoral (Application, Appeal and Petition rules 1995) Statutory Instrument 74A/95 and Section 182 of the Electoral Act [Chapter 2:13] and concluded that parties to an election petition have a duty to ensure the petition is determined quickly, adding that in the present situation, in most of the cases brought before the court, the Petitioners failed to expeditiously file papers to ensure the matters were dealt with