VII. MERITS 54. The Applicants allege that the Respondent State violated their rights to equality before the law and equal protection of the law protected under Article 3 of the Charter when domestic courts convicted and sentenced them based on evidence that did not meet the required standards. *** 55. Article 3 of the Charter provides that “1. Every individual shall be equal before the law. 2. Every individual shall be entitled to equal protection of the law.” 56. The Court recalls that, in line with its case-law, equal protection of the law presupposes that the law protects everyone without discrimination.17 Particularly in respect of the right protected under Article 3 of the Charter, the Court has held that a violation would be established when there is evidence showing that the Applicant was treated differently as compared to other persons who were in a situation similar to his.18 57. In the context of an alleged violation of the right to a fair trial, the burden lies on the Applicant to prove that the manner in which the competent domestic court assessed the evidence reveals apparent or manifest error that occasioned a miscarriage of justice to the detriment of the Applicant as opposed to other litigants in the same situation.19 58. The Court notes that the Applicants’ allegation centres on two main issues, namely, the Court of Appeal firstly, based the conviction on wrong evidence; 17 Harold Mbalanda Munthali v. Republic of Malawi, ACtHPR, Application No. 022/2017, Judgment of 23 June 2022 (merits and reparations), § 81; Action pour la Protection des Droits de l’Homme v. Côte d’Ivoire (merits) (18 November 2016) 1 AfCLR 668, § 146. 18 Oscar Josiah v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (28 March 2019) 3 AfCLR 83, 73; Mgosi Mwita Makungu v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (7 December 2018) 2 AfCLR 550, § 69. 19 Josiah v. Tanzania, supra, § 60. 15