B. Other conditions of admissibility 83. The Court notes that there is no contention regarding the compliance with the conditions set out in Rule 50(2)(a), (c) and (d) of the Rules. Even so, it must satisfy itself that these conditions have been met. 84. From the record, the Court notes that, the Applicants have been clearly identified by name in fulfilment of Rule 50(2)(a) of the Rules. 85. The Court also finds that the language used in the Application is not disparaging or insulting to the Respondent State or its institutions in fulfilment of Rule 50(2)(c) of the Rules. 86. The Court holds that the Application is not based exclusively on news disseminated through mass media as it is founded on the CPA in fulfilment with Rule 50(2)(d) of the Rules. 87. The Court, therefore, finds that all the admissibility conditions have been met and holds that this Application is admissible. VII. MERITS 88. The Applicants allege the violation of Articles 1, 2, and 7 of the Charter, with regard to the constitutionality of Sections 148(5)(b), (c) and (e) of the Respondent State’s CPA. A. Alleged violation of Article 2 of the Charter 89. The Applicants allege the violation of Article 2 of the Charter by virtue of the enactment of Sub-Sections 148(5)(b) and (e) of the CPA. 90. The Applicants contend that the right to non-discrimination, as protected by the Charter is countenanced by Article 7 of the UDHR and Article 26 of the 21