A. Alleged violation of the right to non-discrimination 58. The Applicants submit that the Respondent State violated their right to nondiscrimination under Article 2 of the Charter but they did not provide any specifics outlining how the Respondent State perpetrated the alleged violation. * 59. According to the Respondent State, the Applicants were arrested, prosecuted and convicted in line with its laws and they were “not discriminated in any way by any person or authority in the Respondent State.” *** 60. The Charter, in Article 2, 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. 61. The Court recalls that in APDH v. Republic of Côte d’Ivoire, it held that discrimination is “a differentiation of persons or situations on the basis of one or several unlawful criterion/criteria.”24 As the Court pointed out in Jebra Kambole v. United Republic of Tanzania, however, this understanding of discrimination is what is often referred to as direct discrimination.25 In cases where the discrimination is indirect, the key indicator is not necessarily different treatment based on visible or unlawful criteria but the disparate effect on groups or individuals as a result of specified measures or actions. 26 24 Actions pour la Protection des Droits de l’Homme (APDH) v. Republic of Cote d’Ivoire (Merits) (18 November 2016) 1 AfCLR 668, §§146-147. 25 Jebra Kambole v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (15 July 2020) 4 AfCLR 460, § 68. 26 Ibid. 16