80. The Court notes that the Respondent State applied the criteria set out in the Decree of 6 February 2006, which is a public and impersonal document, taking into account the Applicants’ situation on the date of the decree. Furthermore, there is no evidence that this provision in any way contains principles of inequality in relation to the Applicants, who do not provide any evidence that they suffered unjustified and discriminatory treatment. 81. The Court further observes that the Applicants’ allegation that Fantiémé Coulibaly, Fousseiny Siaka Berthé, Bê Dackouo, Fatoma Fomba, Ginsera Siama Palu and Issa Coulibaly were enrolled as cadet Superintendents of Police although they were in the same situation, is not supported by any evidence. 82. The Court, finally, observes that the Applicants do not provide any evidence to show that they were not allowed to enrol at the National Police College to be trained as Superintendents of Police because of their race, ethnicity, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinions, national or social origin, wealth, or birth, or any other consideration. 83. Accordingly, the measures taken by the Ministry of Internal Security and Civil Defence cannot be said to have been incompatible with the Applicants’ rights to equality before the law and to non-discrimination. The Court, therefore, dismisses the Applicants’ allegation in this regard and holds that the Respondent State did not violate Articles 2 and 3 of the Charter as read jointly with Article 26 of the ICCPR. ii. Alleged violation committed by the Supreme Court 84. The Applicants allege that by disregarding the applicable case-law, the Administrative Division of the Supreme Court, unjustifiably violated the principle of equality before the law. 85. They contend that while the Supreme Court dismissed their appeal, it granted their colleagues’ request for enrolment into the Police Academy, 20