80. With regard to reinstatement, the Court notes that in its two (2) judgments, the Supreme Court examined the allegations of discrimination and concluded that its case-law cited by the Applicant was not applicable to him given that his dismissal occurred during his probationary period. The Supreme Court dismissed the claim for reinstatement as unfounded with regard to the reason for the dismissal.°* Accordingly, the Court finds that, in the circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court applied the principle of distinction in a manner that is consistent with the right to equality as guaranteed by the Charter. 81. With regard to the allegation of violation of the right to equality before the law stemming from the failure to annul the dismissal and to reinstate him, following the finding of irregularities in the dismissal, the Court notes, as it held earlier, that the Supreme Court examined the relevant grounds and held in conclusion that whereas the dismissal reinstatement was procedure not applicable had not respected in the Applicant's the right to be heard, the case. Moreover, and as a result, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the lower court on the merits to award the Applicant damages for the prejudice suffered. The Court therefore finds that there has been no violation of the right to equality before the law. 82. In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Charter. C. Alleged violation of the right to work 83. The Applicant disregarding alleges that RECO & RWASCO wrongfully his status as a state official, dismissal which dismissed him by in particular requires the prior opinion of the Public Service Commission as stipulated in Articles 22 (3) and (5) and 93 of Law No. 22/2002 of 09/07/2002 on the General Rules and Regulations of the Rwandan Civil Service. %8Judgment RADA 0015/13/CS of 08/11/2013, §§ 29-31; See Judgment No. RS/REV/AD/0003/15/CS of 27/1/2017, §§ 29-37. 21