80. Pursuant to Article 3 of the Charter, 1. Every individual shall be equal before the law. 2. Every individual shall be entitled to equal protection of the law. 81. The Court recalls the legal principle that he who alleges must prove.16 The Court observes that in the present case, the Applicant alleges, without substantiation of his allegation, that the Respondent State violated his rights to equality before the law and to equal protection of the law guaranteed in Article 3(1) and (2) of the Charter. 82. Notwithstanding this, the Court notes that there is nothing on the record to show that the domestic courts breached the Applicant’s right to be protected by the law nor his right to equality before the law. 83. In such circumstances, the Court finds that the Respondent State has not violated the rights to equality before the law and to equal protection of the law guaranteed in Article 3 of the Charter. C. Alleged violation of the right to life 84. The Court observes that the Applicant alleges violation of his right to life, protected by Article 4 of the Charter without substantiating the allegation. However, the Court notes that the Applicant’s requests relate to the death penalty, the vacation of the sentence and removal from death row. As such, the requests relate indirectly to the right to life, protected by Article 4 of the Charter. 85. The Court further notes that a mandatory death sentence was meted out on the Applicant in accordance with a law that denies the judicial officer’s discretion on sentencing. The 16 Court recalls its well-established Sadick Marwa Kisase v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (2 December 2021) 5 AfCLR 728, § 73; Kennedy Owino Onyachi and Charles John Mwanini Njoka v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (28 September 2017) 2 AfCLR 65, §§ 142-146; Nguza Viking and Johnson Nguza v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (23 March 2018) 2 AfCLR 287, §§ 66-74. 20