distinctiveness highly dependent on the natural environment as the Ogieks, were granted recognition of their status and the resultant rights, the refusal of the Respondent to recognize and grant the same rights to the Ogieks, due to their way of life as a hunter gatherer community amounts to 'distinction' based on ethnicity and/or 'other status' in terms of Article 2 of the Charter.” The European Court of Human Rights in the case of RATZENBÖCK AND SEYDL v. AUSTRIA (Application no. 28475/12), in an action of discrimination for refusal to register a same sex marriage in Austria held as follows: “In order for an issue to arise under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (which is in pari-material with Article 14 of the ICCPR) there must be a difference in the treatment of persons in analogous, or relevantly similar, situations. An applicant must demonstrate that, having regard to the particular nature of his or her complaint, he or she was in a relevantly similar situation to others treated differently. However, not every difference in treatment will amount to violation of article 14. 60. In the instant case, the case of the Applicant is that he has been discriminated against by the denial of his benefits whilst others were paid. The Respondent on the other hand stated that indeed two other members of the Council in persons of Charles Taylor and Alhaji G Koromah resigned to contest the presidential election and that none of them was paid any benefits under the Act. To succeed in a claim of discrimination, the Applicant must established that having regard to denial of the retirements benefits due to his resignation, other members who also resigned were nevertheless paid their entitlements. The Applicant while contesting otherwise annexed payment vouchers of several legislators who were not shown to have resigned to contest the election. In essence, the court has no record indicating payments made to other ranking members who resigned to contest the 1997 election. 61.It is trite law that he who alleges bears the burden of making out a prima facie case in support of his averments, the court in its consideration reiterated the cardinal principle of law that “he who alleges must prove”. Therefore, where a party asserts 26