× The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status. of the European Convention, Article 2 does not stipulate a general banning of discrimination; it only prohibits discrimination where it affects the enjoyment of a right or freedom guaranteed by the Charter. The [African] Commission considers that the Complainant has not adequately supported his claims of discrimination to show that this Article has been violated; besides, his not having proven how the enjoyment of one of the rights guaranteed by the Charter had been hindered in a discriminatory manner, his complaint is not based on any of the grounds of discrimination listed out in Article 2 or on grounds similar to the latter. 70. Nonetheless, the [African] Commission notes that Article 3 of the African Charter contains a general guarantee of equality which supplements the ban on discrimination provided for in Article 2. In this regard, the African Charter differs from the European Convention [on Human Rights] and draws inspiration from the Agreement on Civil and Political Rights [sic]. Equality before the law, protected by Article 3(1) relates to the status of individuals before the law. Equal protection by the law, guaranteed in Article 3(2) relates to the implementation of the law and is applicable where the rights of the Complainant are implemented unequally. 71. The [African] Commission further notes that for Article 3 to be applicable, the inequality alleged by the Complainant should follow from the 'law'. In this context, the legislative or regulatory Act constitutes the most unambiguous form of law. It is obvious however that Member States could easily circumvent the Charter i[f] the term 'law' were to be restricted to these formal methods of legislating. The [African] Commission is of the opinion that the Member States would violate Article 3 if they were to exercise a power or judgment conferred by a law in a discriminatory manner. As it happens, the refusal by the Minister of the Economy, Finance and the Budget is not based on any specific legislative authority. Nevertheless, the [African] Commission feels that it was incumbent on the Minister to honour the judgment by virtue of the rule of law and of the principle of the res judicata. 72. In this context the [African] Commission observes that the complainant was unjustifiably refused the implementation of a legal ruling which had the character of res judicata. The Minister of the Economy, Finance and the Budget rejected his request for execution as well as that of two other individuals for no apparent reason. In [its] claims before the African Commission, the Respondent State did not put forward any argument to explain the decision of the Minister in rejecting the Complainant's claim. Moreover, in its submissions dated 30th March 2004 in reaction to the Complainant's arguments, the State has quoted victims of the same violent events who have been compensated. The Minister thereby transformed the right of the Complainant to an effective remedy before the Courts into an illusion and denied him the right to fair legal compensation. Under these circumstances, the [African] Commission is of the view that the decision of the Minister arbitrarily deprived the Complainant of the protection of the law accorded to other citizens in accordance with the provisions of Article 3 of the Charter. 73. Furthermore, although the Complainant does not specifically mention this Article of the Charter, the examination of the facts shows a violation of Article 7 of the Charter concerning the right to fair trial. The effective exercise of this right by individuals requires that: "All State Institutions against which an appeal has been lodged or a legal ruling has been pronounced conform fully with this ruling or this appeal." 3 74. The [African] Commission notes that in similar instances, the European Court of Human Rights declared that the right to access to a Court guaranteed by Article 6(1) × In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgement shall be pronounced publicly by the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. of the European Convention on Human Rights would be illusory if the domestic laws of a State allowed a final and binding legal ruling to remain ineffective to the detriment of one Party. The Court therefore ruled that the execution of a judgment, no matter from what jurisdiction, should be considered as being an integral part of the 'proceedings' in accordance with Article 6. The Court further recognised that the effective protection of the person to be tried and the re-establishment of legality constituted an obligation for 6