It is on this basis that the Supreme Court adopted a different interpretation of the applicable law, and, in its Judgment No. 186 of 7 April 2006, dismissed the Applicants’ request for regularisation after consideration thereof stating the grounds for doing so 97. The Court observes that, the Supreme Court’s decision was entirely within its prerogative to develop its own jurisprudence. As such, the Court does not find that the Applicants were treated unfairly or discriminated against during the proceedings before the Supreme Court. 98. In view of the foregoing, the Court dismisses the Applicants’ allegation that the Respondent State, through its Supreme Court’s decision, infringed up on their rights to equality before the law and to non-discrimination. The Court thus holds that the Respondent State has not violated Articles 2 and 3 of the Charter read jointly with Article 26 of the ICCPR. B. Alleged violation of the right of access to the public service 99. The Applicants submit that Article 125 of the Law of 12 July 20120 restricts the right to hold a public service office, protected by Article 25(c) of the ICCPR as regards the obligation to obtain prior approval of the hierarchical superiors. ** 100. The Respondent State points out that the Law of 12 July 2010 on the status of police officers does not contain any provisions that are contrary to national or international legal standards, and that it is the Applicants who want the administration to apply it inappropriately. 101. The Respondent State also submits that Amadou Dembélé, one of the four Applicants and candidate in the professional competitive examination, was enrolled as a Cadet Superintendent of Police at the NPA on 16 January 2018, pursuant to Decision No. 2017-3261/MSPC-SG of 2 October 2017. According to the Respondent State, this is ample proof that it still respects 23