131. In accordance with the provisions of Rule 116(2 and 4) of its Rules of Procedure, the Respondent State was invited to make its submissions, but failed to do so. 132. The Commission recalls that it has, in its jurisprudence, set out the principle that where allegations of human rights violations go uncontested by the government concerned, particularly after repeated notification or request for information on the case, the Commission must decide on the facts provided by the complainant and treat those facts as given20. 133. It follows from this that the Commission proceeds to consider the merits of the case, on the basis of information provided by the Complainants and its analysis of the circumstances, in line with Rule 120(2) of its Rules of Procedure. Alleged violation of the right to non-discrimination (Article 3), on the basis of ethnicity (Article 2) and equal protection 134. Article 2 of the African Charter provides that: "Every individual shall be entitled to the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms recognized and guaranteed in t~e present Charter without distinction of any kind such as race, ethnic group~ colour, sex, 'language, religion, political or any other opinion, national and social ori;iin,}ortune, birth or any status" 135. Article 3 of the African Charter provides that: "Every indiuidual shall be equal before the law"; and "Every individual shall be entitled to equal protection ej the law". 136. Both Articles 2 and 3"have an element of discrimination which makes them intrinsically linked and inter-dependent The connection between Articles 2 and 3 of the Charter have also been expressed by the Commission in its jurisprudence wherein the COmmission noted that the right to non-discrimination and equal protection of the law are interlinked to the extent that a violation of one result in a violation of the other.s' 137. In view of the fact thatthe principle of discrimination cuts across both rights, the Commission will proceed to examine both rights together in its analysis of this claim. 138. The Complainants allege that they had suffered discrimination in that the military police and senior authorities that they had approached in the army did not show interest to stop the violations, or to hear their case because they (the Complainants) are from a minority tribe least represented in the Government, while the perpetrators were tribesmen of the military police and senior authorities. They state that while they were constantly harassed, arrested and denied access to justice, despite reporting their ordeals to the Police, the perpetrators were left unpunished. 20 See Communication 59/91, Embga Mekongo Louis v. Cameroon; Communication 60/9