C. Alleged violation of the Second Applicant’s right not to be discriminated against 178. The Second Applicant claims that his right not to be discriminated against on the basis of national origin, as provided under Article 2 of the Charter, was violated when: i. He was not provided with interpretation services; ii. He was exposed to a hostile police environment by being interrogated in Kiswahili, a language he did not understand, to extract a confession: and iii. Police made inconvenient and inaccurate assumptions about him, because of his refugee status. 179. The Court has already addressed the claims related to the right to be provided with interpretation services and on police brutality. It will, therefore, focus on the third claim, relating to the police making inaccurate assumptions based on his refugee status. 180. The Second Applicant avers that the police made inaccurate presumptions because of his status as a refugee, precipitated by the increasing intolerance of refugees to the “Open door policy toward refugees from Congo, Rwanda and Burundi”. 181. He further avers that the Respondent State’s failure to investigate or prosecute Mama Mboya, a Tanzanian national and the wife of a police officer, who allegedly orchestrated the murder, demonstrates the authority’s preferential treatment towards her based on national origin. He argues that under the prosecution’s theory, Mama Mboya was arguably the most culpable of all actors and yet the prosecution never charged her or called her to testify as a witness, which is in stark contrast to the manner in which the two impoverished Burundian refugees, were prosecuted and tortured. According to him, this preferential treatment violates the Respondent State’s obligation to ensure equal treatment under the law. 51