101. The Court notes that, in the present case, the Applicants base their argument on the fact that the law was misapplied by the Supreme Court. Such a statement cannot constitute proof of discriminatory treatment. 102. The Court thus considers that the Applicants have not proved a violation of the right to non-discrimination. 103. Accordingly, the Court finds that the allegation is not established and that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicants’ right to non-discrimination. VIII. REPARATIONS 104. The Applicants seek the payment of the sum of Twenty Million (20,000,000) CFA francs to each of them, for damages, and Five Billion (5,000,000,000) CFA francs as salary arrears in respect of July 2012 to December 2018. They also request to be issued work certificates, under penalty of Two Million (2,000,000) CFA francs for each day of delay, all to be provisionally enforced. 105. In response, the Respondent State submits that the claim be dismissed, contending that it cannot be held liable for the violation of any of the Applicants’ rights. *** 106. The Court notes that Article 27(1) of the Protocol provides that: If the Court finds that there has been violation of a human or peoples’ right, it shall make appropriate orders to remedy the violation, including the payment of fair compensation or reparation. 24