and ultimately held that the applicants were properly identified at the crime scene. *** 64. The Court notes that while the issue raised by the Applicants is in relation to evidence used in domestic courts, their allegation is that the manner in which issues of evidence were examined led to a violation of their rights to equality before the law and equal protection of the law. 65. With respect to the right to equal protection of the law, the Court notes that Articles 12 and 13 of the Respondent State’s Constitution provide for the said right in terms that are similar to those of the Charter. It is worth noting that the Applicants have not provided evidence that any other law or statute applied in the proceedings involving them runs counter to the right to equal protection of the law. The Court also notes, from the record of the present Application, that there is no evidence to the effect that domestic proceedings were conducted based on any law or statute, which includes different provisions in respect of the Applicants as opposed to other litigants in terms of both the burden of proof and evidentiary issues. 66. As far as the right to equality before the law is concerned, this Court notes that, as it emerges from the records, the Court of Appeal examined all evidence submitted by the prosecution but eventually discarded such evidence, which appeared to be contradictory. The Court of Appeal also assessed all evidence tendered in the case against the Applicants and reached the conclusion that the prosecution had proven the case beyond reasonable doubt as required by the standards applicable in such circumstances. Consequently, it cannot be said that the right to equality before the law was breached simply because the Court of Appeal ultimately discarded contradictory evidence which the Applicants claim could have been in their favour. 17