67. As a consequence of the foregoing, the Court holds that the consolidated Applications fulfil all the requirements set out under Article 56 of the Charter as restated in Rule 50(2) of the Rules and accordingly finds the Applications admissible. VII. MERITS 68. Both Applicants allege a violation of their rights under Articles 2, 3 and 7 of the Charter by reason of the manner in which their trials before the domestic courts were conducted. A. Alleged violation of the right to non-discrimination and equality before the law 69. The First Applicant makes two arguments in respect of the alleged violation of the right to non-discrimination and equality before the law. First, that the evidence against him was fabricated and that the domestic courts unfairly relied on this to prove the case against him thus resulting in an unfair determination of his case which, according to him, also infringed his right to equality before the law. Second, that the offence of rape, as provided for under the Respondent State’s Penal Code, contravenes the Articles 2 and 3 of the Charter on the basis of its “sexism”. 70. As for the Second Applicant, although, in his Application, he referred to Articles 2 and 3 of the Charter, he did not make any submissions specifically outlining how his rights under the aforementioned provisions were violated. * 71. In its Response, the Respondent State disputes all the averments by the First Applicant and puts him to strict proof. The Respondent State argues that the First Applicant was not discriminated against in the domestic proceedings and he was permitted to access all legal avenues to pursue redress. As to the evidential issues raised by the First Applicant, the 19