afforded an opportunity through his counsel to cross examine the prosecution witnesses and to testify during the trial. 58. The Respondent State further avers that, to ensure equal protection before the law, the High Court proceedings were conducted in the presence of three Court Assessors. It therefore surmises that the Applicant’s allegations that he was not treated equally or protected before the law lack merit and should be duly dismissed. *** 59. Article 3 of the Charter guarantees the right to equal protection of the law and to equality before the law provides as follows: 1. Every individual shall be equal before the law. 2. Every individual shall be entitled to equal protection of the law. 60. In its jurisprudence, this Court has held that equality and non-discrimination are fundamental principles of international human rights law which everyone should enjoy without distinction.18 The Court also reiterates that violation of the rights to equal protection of the law and non-discrimination presupposes that persons in a similar or identical situation have been treated differently. 19 61. In the instant case, the Court observes that the Applicant simply states that the Respondent State violated his right to equal protection of the law and to equality before the law, without demonstrating how it did so. Notwithstanding this, records on file show that the Applicant was present at his trial and was represented by counsel before the High Court and Court of Appeal. Furthermore, a voir dire20 was conducted to consider whether the caution statement was recorded voluntarily and he was given an opportunity through his counsel to cross examine the prosecution witnesses and to APDH v. Côte d’Ivoire (merits) (18 November 2016) 1 AfCLR 668 § 142. Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 140 and Isiaga v. Tanzania (merits), § 85. 20 This is a preliminary examination of a witness to ascertain the truth or admissibility of evidence held during a trial. 18 19 17