Article 3(1) of the Charter states as follows - "Every individual shall be equal before the law." In the Zimbabwe Lawyers' case, cited above, the African Commission has interpreted this article as follows at paragraph 96"The most fundamental meaning of equality before the law under Article 3 (1) of the Charter is the right by all to equal treatment under similar conditions. The right to equality before the law means that individuals legally within the jurisdiction of a State should expect to 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. Its meaning is the right to have the same procedures and principles applied under the same conditions. The principle that all persons are equal before the law means that existing laws must be applied in the same manner to those subject to them. The right to equality before the law does not refer to the content of legislation, but rather exclusively to its enforcement. It means that judges and administration officials may not act arbitrarily in enforcing laws." We consider that, although the African Commission has restricted its meaning of the right to equality before the law to the enforcement of the law as such, if the content of the law itself does not allow the law to be enforced equally, as in the case of section 5(2) of the State Liability Act of the Respondent, then Article 3 (1) would be infringed, as the Human Rights Committee has demonstrated in its General Comment No. 18, quoted earlier. We consider that section 5 (2) of the State Liability Act of the Respondent is also in contravention of Article 3 (2) of the Charter which lays down that "every individual shall be entitled to equal protection of the law." The African Commission has interpreted Article 3 (2) in the Zimbabwe Lawyers' case, already quoted, at paragraphs 99 - 101 as follows "Equal protection of the law under Article 3 (2), on the other hand, means that no person or class of persons shall be denied the same protection of the laws which is enjoyed by other persons or class of persons in like circumstances in their lives, liberty, property and in their pursuit of happiness. It simply means that similarly situated persons must receive similar treatment under the law. In its decision in Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights and the Institute for Human Rights and Development [in Africa]//Republic of Zimbabwe, (293/04) this Commission relied on the Supreme Court decision in Brown v Board of Education of Topeka, in which Chief Justice Earl Warren of the United States of America argued that 'equal protection of the law refers to the right of all persons to have the same access to the law and courts and to be treated equally by the law and courts both in procedures and in the substance of the law. It is akin to the right to due process of law, but in particular applies to equal treatment as an element of fundamental fairness'. In order for a party therefore to establish a successful claim under Article 3 (2) of the Charter, it should show that the Respondent State had not given the Complainant the same treatment it accorded to the others. Or that the Respondent State had accorded favourable treatment to others in the same position as the Complainant." We hold, therefore, that, in the light of all the authorities already quoted by us, section 5(2) of the State Liability Act of the Respondent is not only in breach of the right to an effective remedy, the right to have access to an independent and impartial court or tribunal and the right to a fair hearing but also in contravention of the right to equality before the law and the right to equal protection of the law, and, therefore, is incompatible with the Respondent's obligations under Articles 4 (c) and 6 (1) of the Treaty. We can only reiterate at this stage what the Inter-American Court of Human Rights stated at paragraph 35 of its Advisory Opinion given in 1987, quoted in Campbell, already cited, namely that the rule of law, representative democracy and personal liberty are essential for the protection of human rights and that "in a democratic society, the rights and freedoms inherent in the human person, the guarantees applicable to them and the rule of law form a triad. Each component thereof defines itself, complements and depends on the others for its meaning." In this regard, we draw the attention of any Member State of SADC to the adverse effect which its existing 9