ensure gender-sensitive investigations and prevent gender stereotyping and secondary victimization. 77 142. Now, in determining discrimination in this context the Commission follows the tests of discrimination in its decision in Kenneth Good vs. Republic of Botstuana/» that a violation of the principle of non-discrimination arises it firstly, equal cases are treated differently; secondly, a difference in treatment does not have an objective and reasonable justification; and thirdly, if there is no proportionality between the aim sought and the means employed. Within the context of the princiE!~~jj~bove,several crucial questions regarding the situation at hand need to be addresseCt~rn~se questions include: (i) Was there equal treatment under the law for all men and.women in Sudan? (ii) If so, is there a reasonable justification for this treatment? 143. The Complainants submitted that the first Victim faced persecution based on her gender and religion as the daughter of a Muslim man who.professed Christianity and married a Christian."? They argued that had she .been thec~a,~ughter'of a Christian man who converted to Islam, she would not have been charge.aj~withapostasy. Furthermore, they assert that if she were a Muslim man married )t,9:il)<£~~istian womari..she would not have been convicted of adultery. ' , ;,1.' ,~.;.'. -'\1i~I'~::~~:~~ 144. The Complainants; contend that such HifferenH~l! treatment is discriminatory, representing a 'gr~ve~;miscarriageof justice. And that the" offense of adultery and the application of tllfSudanese criminal law is particularly di~criminatory against women, as evident in this case, where only the first Victim and not her husband were convicted. The Complainants raised a concern about both parties being charged with adultery, but only one of them was found guilty. They questioned how this was possible and whether it meant that a person could be found guilty of committing adultery alone, even if both parties were initially charged with the same act,80 145. Several conclusions. (ire apparent from the submissions of the statements made by the Complainants, n~ni~ly, (i) the treatment is exclusively for women, (ii) the practice is to discourage mau~ag~' between Female Muslims and Male Non-Muslims, and not vice versa, (iii) the l~w does offer protection as of right to intermarriage between consenting adults and for such the first Victim faced the consequences of the law, id est charged, convicted and suffered all the ordeal;81and (iv) as a result of the laws, the violations were perpetrated on the first Victim, an expectant mother and her infants. 1l""'. 77 Communication 424/12 Sam ira Ibrahim Mahmoud and Rasha Ali Abdel-Rahman (Represented by the Egtjptian Iniiiatiue for Personal Rights (EIPR) & Interights) VS. The Arab Republic of Egtjpt, 75th Ordinary Session, para 174 78 Cited above, para. 219 79 See the Complainants Submissions on Merit at para 130-133 of the Submission in Merit 'I, 'I' '~..,. 80 See, Annex I, Witness Statement of Mariam Yahia Ibraheem, 20 February 2020, Para 52; Anne(2) Wc~tneSs'\J..:1r D /.(~~'\" Stateme~t of Moh~ed Ahm.ed: 20 Februa.ry 2020, Para 23, also captured in paragraphs 74 to 79 'Offl{e, ~~lI '\ Complainants WrItten Submission on ments , 'II '1,' 81 explained in paragraphs 46-104 of the Complainant's submission on Merit ',!.\ I~ ~ ~ . III ('f' 'f 'I, ' . ._ \l) '" n C ')"1 '.~' ·... 0~y'--- <i ) ,1j.\11\ \ " h 6 ,j:: 32" ~,/ I~~V41-HICI\\\~\' - ~<O~"'E E1 \)'C. < .,"":;::~ .. \'\ _ u,; / ti_'J /1 ,," ~