76. In addition, the European Court of Human Rights has established the following criteria for determining prohibited discrimination: (a) the facts disclose differential treatment; (b) the distinction does not have an objective, i.e. it does not have an objective and reasonable justification; (c) and there is no reasonable proportionality between the means employed and the objective to be realized; (d) whether the situation of the Applicant is sufficiently analogous to that of individuals who benefit from better protection of the contested right. (See the cited case MARCKX v. BELGIUM, §49). “77, These criteria have also been adopted by other international judicial bodies for the protection Commission in of human the case rights (see, KENNETH for example, GOOD v. the African BOTSWANA, Communication No. 313/05, § 219 and 224). The African Court in the cited case “Ogiek” concluded that a distinction or differentiated treatment becomes discrimination, when it does not have an objective and reasonable justification and is not proportional. 78. The same criteria have been applied by this Court in determining prohibited discrimination, as is clear from its extensive case law (See the cases, CVDD y. COTE D'IVOIRE, Judgment No. ECW/CCJ/JUD/05/09, CCI LR 20042009, p. 325; WOMEN AGAINST VIOLENCE AND EXPLOITATION IN SOCIETY (WAVES) & ANOR v. THE REPUBLIC OF SERRA LEONE, Judgment No. ECW/CCJ/APP/JUD/37/19). 79. In the instant case, it is necessary to verify whether the Applicant has been treated differently on the grounds of her sex, which is unequal and prohibited by Article 2 of the African Charter. 80. It follows from the jurisprudence of this Court that an action based on Article 2 of the African Charter on discrimination, in order to be successful, 20 E>