74. The Court notes that the burden of proving the alleged human rights violation lies with the Applicant. 75. In the present case, the Court notes that the Applicant has neither substantiated the allegation herein, nor has he demonstrated how he was discriminated against, in violation of his right under Article 2 of the Charter.15 76. In any case, the Court observes that there is nothing on the record to show that the domestic courts discriminated against the Applicant in proceedings involving him. 77. In such circumstances, the Court has no basis to find a violation and therefore finds that the Respondent State has not violated the Applicant’s right to non-discrimination guaranteed under Article 2 of the Charter. B. Alleged violation of the right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law 78. The Applicant alleges that his rights to equality before the law and equal protection of the law guaranteed under Article 3 of the Charter, were violated by the Respondent State during his trial by domestic courts. * 79. The Respondent State on its part avers that the Applicant bears the burden of proof in relation to the alleged violation of human right, which he has failed to discharge. *** 15 Sijaona Chacha Machera v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 035/2017, Judgment on 22 September 2022, § 82. Yassin Rashid Maige v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations), ACtHPR, Application No. 018/2017, Judgment on 5 September 2023, § 124. 19