153. The Court holds that it is incumbent on the Party purporting to have been a victim of discriminatory treatment to provide proof thereof.19 154. In the instant case, the Court notes that the Applicant has not shown been discriminated against in terms of the way the Tanzanian how he has law on legal assistance was applied to him. He has not shown, in particular, that the law was applied differently to other people in the same situation as himself. The Court therefore dismisses the allegation and holds that the Respondent State has not violated Article 3 of the Charter. G) The allegation that the Applicant did not receive timely communication of the indictment and statements of witnesses to enable him defend himself 155. At the Public Hearing, Counsel for the Applicant alleged that the latter repeatedly requested copies of the indictment and the witnesses’ statements to enable him defend himself, but without success; that his first request was made on 26 May 1997 but that it was only fifty days later that he received only one witness statement; that five months later, the Prosecutor admitted to failure to bring the statements of the other witnesses due to shortage of stationery; that on 17 October 1997, the Applicant reminded the court that he had received only one witness statement, but that, at that point, the Prosecutor denied and claimed that all the documents decided to proceed with had been given; and that despite all that, the court consideration of the case without investigating these shortcomings. 156. At the same Public Hearing, the Respondent State, relying on the records of the proceedings in the local courts, explained that on the day of the hearing, the Prosecutor had two witnesses ready to testify; that the Applicant indicated that he had the indictment 19 See in this regard: International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia: 96-21 A), Judgment on Appeal of 20 February 2001, para 607 42 In the Matter of Celebici (IT- = Yee & @K