prove that the applicant was treated differently from other persons who were in a similar situation as him.14 62. The Court considers that, in the context of the alleged violation of the right to a fair trial, it is incumbent on the Applicant to prove that the manner in which the competent domestic court examined the evidence reveals an apparent or manifest error that resulted in a miscarriage of justice to the detriment of the Applicant as opposed to other parties in similar situations.15 63. The Court notes that in the present case, and as it emerges from the records, there is no provision in the applicable domestic law that provides for different treatment of litigants in similar situations. 64. Moreover, the domestic courts examined the Applicant’s allegations. In particular, there is no evidence in the decision of the Court of Appeal that it omitted any of the elements put forward by the parties, or that it erred, as the Applicant alleges. In any event, the Court of Appeal heard five (5) witnesses during the Applicant’s trial. 65. Accordingly, the Court finds that Applicant has failed to substantiate the allegation that his right to equality before the law or his right to equal protection of the law was violated. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the allegation that the Respondent State violated Article 3(1) and (2) of the Charter. B. Alleged violation of the right to dignity 66. The Applicant also alleges that the Respondent State violated his right to respect for the dignity inherent in a human being and to the recognition of his legal status. 14 Oscar Josiah v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (28 March 2019) 3 AfCLR 83, § 73; Makungu v. Tanzania, supra, § 70. 15 Josiah v. Tanzania, supra, § 73. 15