000 222 the actual appearance of the accused for the purposes of proper administration of justice. The Court, consequently, notes that the restriction on liberty is underpinned by legitimate objectives. 67.The Court also notes that the restriction is necessary and appropriate to ensure the reality of the aim pursued without compromising the ideal of liberty and personal security provided under Article 6 of the Charter. ln circumstances such as those set out in Section 148 (5) (a) (i) of the Criminal Procedure Act, pre-trial detention is undoubtedly the necessary restriction for attainment of the desired objective. 68.The Court finds, in conclusion, that the Applicant's detention pending trial was not without reasonable grounds and that the refusal to grant him bail does not constitute a violation of his right to liberty. Article 6 of the Charter has therefore not been violated. B. Alleged violation of the right to equal protection of the law and equality before the Law 69. The Applicant submits that the refusal to grant him bail is discriminatory, thus violating his right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law as provided under Article 3(2) of the Charter. 70. The Respondent State has not responded to this allegation *** 71 . The Court recalls that the right to equality before the law requires that all persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals.ll lt holds however that to claim discrimination or unequal protection of the law, the Applicant must adduce ll Application No. 032/2015. Judgment of 211312018, Kij'rji tsiaga v. tJnited Repubtic of Tanzania. para. 85. L7 s F