90. The Court recalls that Article 3 of the Charter provides thus: 1. Every individual shall be equal before the law. 2. Every individual shall be entitled to equal protection of the law. 91. As the Court’s jurisprudence has confirmed, the principle of equality before the law, which is implicit in the principle of equal protection of the law, does not necessarily require equal treatment in all instances and may allow differentiated treatment of individuals placed in different situations.31 92. Consequently, a violation of Article 3 of the Charter does not necessarily follow simply from an alleged instance of differentiated treatment. Importantly, it is the party that alleges a violation of Article 3 of the Charter that bears the burden of substantiating the allegations. As the Court has previously held, general statements to the effect that a right has been violated do not suffice to justify a violation of the Charter.32 93. The Court confirms that States, within permissible limits, are allowed latitude to configure their electoral management bodies to satisfy their peculiar local needs. In the present case, the Court finds that restricting recruitment for the Director of Elections to the civil service does not violate the Charter. The Court takes notice that no impropriety has been made against the Respondent State’s system for recruitment into the public service, from where the Director of Elections is subsequently appointed. 94. The Court thus holds that the section 6(1) of the NEA is not in violation of the Charter in so far as it restricts the appointment of the Director of Elections only to candidates from the public service. 31 Kambole v. Tanzania, supra, § 87. George Maili Kemboge v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (11 May 2018) 2 AfCLR 369, § 51 and Minani Evarist v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (21 September 2018) 2 AfCLR 402, § 75. 32 26