Respondent State submits that issues of inconsistency of prosecution witnesses and their credibility were all dealt with by the Court of Appeal as reflected on pages 5 to 7 of its judgment. It thus submits that the evidence relied upon to convict the First Applicant was reliable and sufficient to sustain the conviction. 72. As to the status of the offence of rape under its Penal Code, the Respondent State disputes the First Applicant’s allegations and argues that he has not illustrated how the Penal Code provisions contravene Articles 2 and 3 of the Charter. In so far as the whole Chapter on offences against morality is concerned, the Respondent State submits that this Chapter proscribes offences committed by both males and females for purposes of preserving rights and morals of its society and can thus not be said to infringe the Charter. 73. In connection with the Second Applicant, the Respondent State submits, generally, that it did not violate his rights under Articles 2 and 3 of the Charter without offering any substantiation. *** 74. The Court recalls that Article 2 of the Charter provides as follows: Every individual shall be entitled to the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms recognized and guaranteed in the present Charter without distinction of any kind such as race, ethnic group, colour, sex, language, religion, political or any other opinion, national and social origin, fortune, birth or other status. 75. The Court also recalls that Article 3 of the Charter provides thus 1. Every individual shall be equal before the law. 2. Every individual shall be entitled to equal protection of the law. 20