Communication 341/07 - Equality Now v Ethiopia render to her, she was denied justice by the failures of the prosecution and judicial authorities to establish criminal responsibility and punish the perpetrators. This was the second tier of the violations. The disciplinary measures against the prosecutor and the judge of the Arsi high court did not remediate the violations she suffered. To be clear, whereas these measures demonstrate disapproval of the conduct of the prosecutor and the judge, they did not yield the re-trial of the perpetrators and sanctioning of their criminal acts. Permitting perpetrators to escape criminal sanctions discloses some kind of subtle approval or tolerance of the acts they committed. 139. Thus whereas the Respondent State was not directly responsible for the violations primarily committed by private individuals, these failures to respond to the violations attract the international responsibility of the Respondent State in respect of the rights that were violated. It is in this regard that the Respondent State is internationally responsible for violations of Ms Negash's rights to: integrity of her person (Art. 4), dignity (Art. 5), liberty and security of her person (Art. 6), and protection from inhuman and degrading treatment (Art. 5).13 The failures also amount to the State's direct violations of Ms Negash's rights to have her cause heard (Art. 7(l)(a)), and the right to protection of the law (Art. 3). 140. The Complainant also contends that the Respondent State violated Articles 3 and 2 of the Charter. The former provides for the guarantees that every individual: (a) shall be equal before the law; (b) shall have protection of the law; and (c) the protection of the law shall be provided equally to persons in relevantly analogous situations. The right to protection of the law has been considered above and found to have been violated. The Commission will thus focus on discrimination which infringes on the right to equality and equal protection of the law. 141. In Communication 294/04 - Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights and Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa (on behalf of Andrew Barclay Meldrum) v Zimbabwe, the Commission expounded that 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 Velasquez-Rodriguez v. Honduras (Merits), n 9 above