000318 there is nothing on record showing that this is not the case with respect to the Applicants. 88.The issue for determination then is whether the Applicants' conviction and, the alleged refusal of the Court of Appeal to review their conviction amounts to a violation of their right to equal protection of the law and equality before the law, that is, whether the domestic courts have treated the Applicants in a discriminatory manner while considering their case. ln the case of Abubakariv United Republic of Tanzama, this Court held that "it is incumbent on the Party purporting to have been a victim of discriminatory treatment to provide proof thereof'.17 89.1n the instant case, the Applicants merely allege that their conviction and the Court o of Appeal's dismissal of their application for review of their conviction reveal discriminatory treatment. The Applicants do not state the circumstances in which they were subjected to unjustified differential treatment in comparison to other persons in a similar situation.ls As this Court has stated in Alex Thomas v Tanzania, "general statements to the effect that a right has been violated are not enough. More substantiation is required."le 90.The Court therefore dismisses the Applicants' allegation that their rights under Article 3 (1) and (2) of the Charter were violated. a VIII. REPARATIONS 91.|n their submissions, the Applicants pray the Court to quash both their conviction and the sentence imposed on them and to set them at liberty, to redress the violation of theirfundamental rights in accordance with Article 27 (1)of the Protocol 17 18 1e Mohamed Abubakari v Tanzania Judgment, $ 153 tbid, s 154. AlexThomasvTanzania Judgment, S 140. 27 o >---) Y