the results of a presidential election from accessing courts to seek a remedy. The Applicant submits that by having a provision such as article 41(7) as part of its Constitution, the Respondent State has violated Article 3(2) of the Charter. 85.In its Response, the Respondent State contends that the right to equal protection of the law is not absolute and can be limited where there is a legitimate purpose or aim. The Respondent State further argues that “the principle of equality or non- discrimination does not mean that all differential treatments and distinctions are forbidden because some distinctions are necessary when they are legitimate and justifiable.” The Respondent State further submits that a State Party to the Charter enjoys “a margin of appreciation in assessing whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justify a different treatment.” RK 86. Article 3(2) of the Charter provides that “[e]very individual shall be entitled to equal protection of the law.” 87. The Court notes that the principle of equality before the law, which is implicit in the principle of equal protection of the law and equality before the law, does not necessarily require equal treatment in all instances and may allow differentiated treatment of individuals placed in different situations.2’ 88.In the present case, the Court notes that article 41(7) of the Respondent State’s Constitution does not deny the Applicant Respondent State. The Applicant, equal protection of the laws in the like other citizens, has been guaranteed same range of rights in respect of contesting the election of a president. these circumstances, the Court finds that the Applicant violation of Article 3(2). 27 Norbert Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (merits) § 167. 24 the Given has failed to prove a