108. Lastly, the reliefs sought before the RPD Committee included an order that the Respondent State effectively investigate the singular attacks against the complainants and criminalize the trafficking of body parts. 109. In the present Application, the reliefs sought are much wider as the Applicants seek an order that the Respondent State adopt a comprehensive national strategy to eliminate attacks on PWA, set up a fund for advocacy and services for PWA, reform of laws to recharacterize attacks on PWA as hate crimes, form a committee to identify victims of attacks and provide compensation to them, conduct nationwide sensitization campaigns and train law enforcement, prosecutors and judges on how to effectively investigate and prosecute perpetrators of attacks against PWA. Resultantly, the claims are not identical. 110. In the circumstances, the Court finds that the Application has not been settled in accordance with the principles of the Charter, the Constitutive Act of the AU or the UN Charter and therefore fulfils the requirement of Rule 50(2)(g) of the Rules. 111. In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that all the admissibility conditions have been fulfilled and declares the Application, admissible. VII. MERITS 112. The Applicants allege the violation of the following rights: i. The right to non-discrimination protected under Article 2 of the Charter; ii. The right to life protected under Article 4 of the Charter; iii. The prohibition against torture, degrading and inhumane treatment under Article 5 of the Charter, Article 7 of the ICCPR , Article 16 of the Children’s Charter; iv. The right to dignity protected under Article 5 of the Charter; 27