62. The Respondent State also argues that the Complainants have not adduced any evidence to show that they pursued administrative remedies from the relevant Government Ministries on behalf of the Nubian community, claiming that similar complaints by the Njemps community, a minority group in Kenya, have been adequately addressed. Besides the Commission not being told who the Njemps are, and what issues were "adequately addressed", who addressed them and before what court or administrative body, the African Commission is of the view that the grievances of the Petitioners are unlikely to have redress in the Kenyan Courts or administrative structures, especially given the fact that social, cultural and economic rights are not expressly protected under the Kenyan Constitution. That is a contention the Respondent State does not contest. Consequently, the African Commission concludes that no effective remedies are available to the Nubians in Kenya. 63. The Commission holds that all the provisions of Article 56 of the African Charter, have been fulfilled by the Complainant. In view of the above, the Commission declares the Communication admissible. Merits The Complainants' Submissions on the Merits Alleged Violation of Article 2 and 3 64. The Complainants submit that Kenyan Nubians are treated differently in the acquisition of identity documents because of their ethnicity and their religion, for which there is no justification, amounting to unlawful discrimination in violation of Articles 2 and 3 of the Charter. 65. According to them, Kenyan Nubians are forced to go through a lengthy, humiliating and expensive vetting process to acquire the Kenya National Identity Card (ID card) which is necessary to obtain recognition of their citizenship and to access the services that come with it. They state that the vetting process causes severe delays, leaves some Kenyan Nubians without any proof of citizenship, causes immense problems if documents are lost, and leaves many Kenyan Nubians with a tenuous citizenship status which can be changed at the whims of the government. 66. The Complainants argue that African human rights law prohibits any unjustified difference of treatment as discrimination. They argue further that Article 2 of the Charter entitles individuals to the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Charter without distinction of any kind such as race, ethnic group, color, sex, language, religion, political or any other opinion, national and social origin, fortune, birth or other status. 67. According to them, there is no need to prove an intention to discriminate, as the definition includes circumstances where an apparently neutral policy has the effect of an unjustified distinction. 68. The Complainants aver that government may only justify a difference in treatment in limited circumstances. They state that the African Commission has found that where the government seeks to provide justification for setting perimeters on the enjoyment of a right:...there has to be at wo-stage process. First, the recognition of the right and the fact that such a right has been violated. Second, that such a violation is justifiable in law.24 69. The Complainants maintain that where a difference in treatment is justified for a legitimate aim, the interference must still be necessary and proportionate to that aim. 70. According to the Complainants, when seeking to acquire the ID cards that are necessary to demonstrate their Kenyan citizenship and for nearly all transactions in adult life, Nubians are treated differently from other Kenyans in a variety of ways including the following: 8