determined by their respective talents and abilities; that in this sense, the common good may justify differences in treatment, equality being neither blind nor ignorant of social conditions. 55. On this point, the Court finds that the equality in question presupposes that equal treatment be reserved for individuals finding themselves in the same situation; but from the examples given, of States like Ghana and Nigeria, the Court considers that one is dealing with States different from Côte d'Ivoire. 56. As already adjudged in the judgment on PROFESSOR ETIM MOSES ESSIEN VS. REPUBLIC OF GAMBIA, equality presupposes same treatment of persons placed in same situation, and that in salary matters, the principle of equality may not be invoked when the source of remuneration is not the same; ECW/CCJ/RUL/05/07, 29th October 2007, §31. 57. However, it is worthy to find out whether the Defendant State violated or not the principle of equality of all citizens before the law, in imposing different levies on cotton, pineapple, rubber, etc. 58. In general, equality is a requirement whose object is to fight against differential treatments based on race, ethnicity, colour, sex, language, religion, political opinion, social background, fortune, birth, or any other situation. 59. But equality as thus defined, does not exclude differentiated treatments when the situations are different or when it is a question of reducing disparities or inequalities. Differences in the imposition of levies among different agricultural products may be justified by reasons related to policies towards development, productivity, and the specific nature of certain products. 60. The Court holds that the specific nature of the exportation of cotton is a very particular case in the West African sub-region and that it is not surprising that in Côte d'Ivoire the levy on cotton is 0%, i.e. subsidised; indeed, in its 2008 annual report, page 28, the ECOWAS Commission states that the cotton initiative remains a central issue in the series of WTO negotiations at Doha, following the request made by the four cotton producing countries (cotton-4) concerning the creation of an emergency fund for cotton, to assist cotton producers in those countries; that the problem of subsidising cotton exports continues to have negative repercussions on the revenues of cotton-exporting ECOWAS member countries, namely Benin, Burkina Faso, Mali and Togo. 61. That is why the Court holds that in the area of taxation, States have a large margin of operation in determining the criteria for the tax base of each product, and that they are not compelled to apply the rate in force in other countries. 62. From the foregoing, it follows that since there was no mention of differences of tax rates among the cocoa and coffee producers, the Applicant's request cannot be admitted. The grievance in respect of violation of the principle of equality of all citizens before the law is therefore unfounded. Consequently Whereas the various indications relating to the name, type of association, headquarters, address and identity of the legal representative, and the law on the legal basis of the creation of associations in Côte d'Ivoire as contained in the Application, constitute a presumption of the existence of National Co-ordinating Group of Departmental Representatives of the Cocoa-Coffee Sector in Côte d'Ivoire as an association created in accordance with the Ivorian law and possessing due legal status; Whereas in a matter of application for human rights violation, the Court cannot grant such right to natural persons only, to the exclusion of legal persons; Whereas the right to a just and favourable remuneration presupposes the existence of an employment relationship between the one demanding the remuneration and the supposed debtor responsible for remuneration; Whereas there is no breach of equality in terms of tax imposition when the taxable products are not the same; For these reasons 9