side by side as to compare and find out whether an ill treatment was concretely meted out to either one or both of them.”1 The Court notes from the facts of the case that the Applicant has not shown any proof that the treatment he received from the Nigerian Army, was different from the treatment meted to another person who was tried and convicted of a similar offence. In other words the Applicant has not proved that the Respondent’s action towards him during his trial by the Military Court Martial was discriminatory under the applicable law, which is the Armed Forces Act. The Applicant having not established this claim, the relief sought fails and is therefore dismissed and the Court so holds. b) Right to equal protection of the law. On the other hand, the right to equal protection of the law in the context of the right to a fair trial, as provided for under Article 14(5) of the ICCPR states that, “Everyone convicted of a crime shall have the right to his conviction and sentence being reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law.” The court is unable find any documentary evidence before it to reach a conclusion that this allegation has been established. The claim being unfounded and is therefore dismissed and the Court so holds. 50. 0n the right to life The Applicant alleges that his right under Article 4 of the Charter was violated. Article 4 of the Charter provides: “Human beings are inviolable. Every human being shall be entitled to respect for his life and the integrity of his person. No one may be arbitrarily deprived of this right.” 21