B. Alleged violation of the right to equality before the law and to equal protection of the law 87. The Applicants allege violation of the right to equality before the law and to equal protection of the law. In support of this allegation, they argue that in its second ruling, the Supreme Court erred by relying exclusively on the opinion of the labour inspector. 88. In response, the Respondent State points out that the Applicants do not provide evidence in support of their allegations. It stresses that their case was examined by the competent courts. To this end, it emphasises that its Labour Code guarantees the proper administration of justice. *** 89. The Court notes that Article 3 (1) of the Charter provides as follows: 1. Every individual shall be equal before the law. 2. Every individual shall be entitled to equal protection of the law. 90. This provision enshrines the rights to equality before the law and to equal protection of the law, which are inseparable from the right to nondiscrimination. 91. The Court emphasises that the right to equality before the law means that “all persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals”,14 that is, the authorities responsible for enforcing or applying the law must do so without discrimination in the situations in question. 14 Kijiji Isiaga v. United Republic of Tanzania, (merits) (2018) 2 AfCLR 218, § 85; Oumar Mariko v. Republic of Mali (merits) (Judgment of 24 March 2022) §101. 21