Applicant’s assertions that she hired them to commit the murder,93 and the police belief that she hired the Applicants to commit the murder, no link has been established between them and Mama Mboya. The Court therefore finds no basis for the Second Applicant’s claim that he was discriminated against on account of his nationality and refugee status. 191. Accordingly, the Court holds that the Respondent State did not violate the Second Applicant’s right not to be discriminated against on the basis of national origin and refugee status, provided for under Article 3(2) of the Charter on equal protection of the law. D. Alleged violation of the right to equal protection of the law 192. Under this claim, the Applicants allege that their right to equal protection of the law was violated by the Respondent State when it: i. Failed to provide them with consular services. ii. Failed to provide interpretation services during the trial iii. Failed to provide them with effective legal representation as envisaged under (Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter as read together with Article 14(3)(d) of the ICCPR. * 193. The Respondent State on its part avers that the Applicants were treated with equality before the law and afforded equal protection before the law. Their trial was held within a reasonable time and they were afforded the right to be represented by two different counsel, during the preliminary hearing and during the trial, as reflected in the record of proceedings of the trial. *** 93 Unsigned Accused’s Confession Before a Justice of Peace dated 10 th May 1999. Habyalimana averred that Abdulkarim “told me that he had a deal and he asked me if I can do it. He told me openly that the wife of Mboya wants my help to kill someone. I asked him what his tribe was and what misunderstanding was there. He said that Mboya was about to chase him away because of their relationship with that woman. I asked him how much money did they agree to pay, he told me it was TSH 400,000”. 54