68. The Court recalls that the burden of proof for a human rights violation lies with the Applicant, unless the Court decides otherwise. 25 In the instant matter, the Court observes that the Applicant alleges that the Respondent State violated his right to equal protection of the law protected under Article 3(2) of the Charter, without expounding the basis thereof. The Court further notes that the Applicant was able to make use of all the legal remedies available to him and that he was able to defend himself in accordance with the protections provided by law. 69. In these circumstances, the Court finds that the Applicant has failed to prove the alleged violation and holds that the Respondent State did not violate his right to equal protection of the law protected under Article 3(2) of the Charter. C. Alleged violation of the right to dignity 70. The Applicant alleges that upon his arrest he was treated inhumanely and was tortured, in violation of his right to dignity protected under Article 5 of the Charter. * 71. The Respondent State contends that it did not violate the Applicant’s right to dignity and submits that the Applicant should be put to strict proof thereof. The Respondent State avers that the Applicant was accorded all of his rights. *** 72. The Court reiterates, as earlier stated, that the burden of proof of a human rights violation lies with the Applicant, unless otherwise decided by the Court. In the instant Application, the Applicant claims that the Respondent State violated his rights to dignity, protected under Article 5 of the Charter, as he 25 Sijaona Chacha Machera v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 035/2017 Judgment of 22 September 2022 (merits), § 82; Yassin Rashid Maige v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 018/2017 Judgment of 5 September 2023 (merits and reparations), § 124. 18