In support of the above allegations, the Complainants allude that the refusal of the authorities of the Respondent State to hear their case was because they were not from the majority tribe. 139. The Commission highlights that there is discrimination if there is any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference which is based on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, and which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by all persons, on equal footing, of all rights and frccdoms.F 140. With regard to equality before the law, the Complainants allege that while the perpetrators enjoyed maximum protection of the natibnal laws, they (the complainants) were ethnically discriminated against by the Respondent State through its agents, by being denied equal protection of the same national laws which their aggressors enjoyed. 141. In this regard, the Commission takes note of the Complainants' ape&ation that while an arrest warrant issued against Mad,~l1gwho had used the State ag~ptsto forcefully take over the property of the Complainants could not be executed and he could not be brought before the law, because he was being guarded by soldiers of the Respondent State, two of the Complainants - Rose Modong and John Kerry, were arrested severally after their"property was destroyed, as they were unprotected. 142. The Commission is conscious of the nature of Article 3 of the African Charter with its two-tier principles' /quality beJore the law' andi;~qual protection of the laws' under Articles 3(1) and 3(2) respectively. Consequently, in determining the extent to which Article 3 has been violated by the Respondent State, it will combine the two principles which both have a component of discrimination, but will however reflect the specific content of the right as violated in its finding. 143. In Zi11J~f;lbweLawyersfpr Human Rights and the Institute for Human Rights and Development (on behalf of Andrew Barclay Meldrum) v Republic of Zimbabwe, the Commission explicated the principle of equality before the law" under Article 3(1) to mean "the right, to' equa! treatment under similar conditions." The Commission underlined that, individuals in the same jurisdiction should 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.P In other words, national laws should be applied in the same manner across the board without discrimination. The Commission also elucidated the scope of "equal protection of the law" to include circumstances where no person or class of persons are denied the same protection of the laws enjoyed by other persons or class of persons in the same situations.o It concluded that non-discrimination goes together with equality before the law and equal protection of the law and constitute a basic and general principle in the protection of human rights.25 /I