84. He contends that by noting the unlawfulness of the dismissal without ordering his reinstatement and the payment of the real value of unpaid wages and other prejudice suffered, the High Court prevented him from practicing his profession. 85. The Applicant further submits that in the dismissal letter he was defamed to the extent that he was institution unable to find a new job. did not issue He claims, in addition, him with a certificate for the services that the rendered as requested by potential employers in his search for a new job. The Applicant further claims that, being the only one who succeeded in the written tests for recruitment at the Kigali University Hospital and Rwanda Housing Authority, he should have been hired. However, according to him, the only reason he was not hired was the defamatory nature of the dismissal letter issued by RECO 86. & RWASCO. He alleges that these acts constitute a violation of Article 6(1) of ICESCR. eee 87. The Court notes that the Applicant alleges the violation of the right to work as guaranteed by Article 6(1) of ICESCR which states that: The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right to work, which includes the right of everyone to the opportunity to gain his living by work which he freely chooses or accepts, and will take appropriate steps to safeguard this right. 88. The Court notes that the same right is protected under the Charter in Article 15 which states that: “Every individual shall have the right to work under equitable and satisfactory conditions, and shall receive equal pay for equal work.” 89. The Court notes that, in comparison to Article 15 of the Charter, the provisions of Article 23 of UDHR which have acquired the character of customary international law°®, contain a more exhaustive and detailed enumeration of the different °At least in its provisions relevant in this case. See Anudo Ochieng Anudo v. Tanzania (Merits), § 76. See also, Diplomatic and Consular staff of the United States in Teheran (United States v. fran) (1980) ICJ 22