failure to implement the Provisional Measures would amount to a violation of the right in question. 132. In Spilg and Mack v Botswana, the Commission held that ‘for there to be a violation of Article 3 of the African Charter, it must be demonstrated that the victim of the alleged violation was not accorded the same protection or treatment that is usually accorded to other persons in like circumstances’.60 In light of this, the Commission notes its conclusions in relation to the right to nondiscrimination, specifically, that the Victims were not similarly situated or in an analogous position to other resident citizens and persons in government service, which justifies the Respondent State’s differential treatment of the Victims. 133. In view of its conclusions regarding Article 2 of the African Charter, the Commission similarly holds that the Victims have not been subjected to unequal treatment, as they have not been denied protection that is accorded to persons in ‘like circumstances’. Decision of the Commission on Merit 134. For the foregoing reasons, the Commission declares that there are no violations of Articles 2, 3, 9, and 13 (1) of the African Charter. Done in Banjul, The Gambia, at the 27th Extraordinary Session of the African Commission held from 19 February to 4 March 2020 Communication 277/2003 - Spilg and Mack & DITSHWANELO (on behalf of Lehlohonolo Bernard Kobedi) v. Botswana (2011) ACHPR, para 160 60 33