statements obtained from the Applicants were not only in compliance with the Criminal Procedure Act but they were also admitted in evidence before the High Court without any objection from the Applicants or their counsel. 66. The Respondent State submits, therefore, that the Applicants were convicted for their criminal acts and there has been no violation of their rights under Article 3 of the Charter. It thus prays the Court to find that the Applicants’ “allegations are misconceived, lack merit and should be duly dismissed.” *** 67. The Court recalls that Article 3 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. 68. In Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania, the Court emphasised that, in respect of allegations of a violation of the right to equality and equal protection before the law, general allegations do not suffice.29 It behoves the party making the allegations to substantiate the same. 69. In the present Application, the Applicants fault the impartiality of the police officers who arrested them because the officers who arrested them were also involved in recording caution statements from them. In this regard, the Court has had regard to section 10 of the Respondent State’s Criminal Procedure Act and confirms that, within the Respondent State, it is legally permissible for a police officer to participate in both the arrest and recording of a caution statement from a suspect. Notably, no argument has been made by the Applicants to demonstrate that the procedure under section 10 of the Criminal Procedure Act contravenes the Charter. Given that the burden of proving an alleged violation always lies with him/her that asserts, orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case and shall reduce into writing any statement made by the person so examined. 29 Thomas v. Tanzania, supra, § 140. 18