58. The Court further notes that the Respondent State, on the one hand, applied the criteria set out in the Decree of 6 February 2006, which is an instrument of general application, taking into account the status of the Applicants at the date of entry into force of the Decree. On the other hand, there is no evidence that the provisions of the Decree outlining criteria applied contain elements of inequality with regard to the Applicants who, in any case, have not demonstrated that they were treated differently and unfairly. 59. The Court further notes that the Applicants’ allegation that some of their colleagues who were in the same situation were accepted as trainee police superintendents is not supported by any evidence. The Court observes, finally, that the Applicants have not adduced any evidence that they were not allowed to join the National Police Academy to train as superintendents or inspectors on account of their status, namely their race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinions, national or social origin, property or descent, or other circumstances. 60. Consequently, the Court finds that the measures taken by the Ministry of Internal Security cannot be said to have violated the Applicants’ rights to equality before the law and to non-discrimination, protected by Article 3(1) of the Charter read jointly with Article 26 of the ICCPR. ii. Alleged violation by the Supreme Court 61. The Applicants allege that by failing to comply with its jurisprudence, the Administrative Section of the Supreme Court violated the principle of equality of all before the law. 62. They also point out that the Supreme Court dismissed their appeal, while granting the request for regularization submitted by their colleagues, who were in a similar situation with regard to the date of graduation, length of service and rank.14 14 Supreme Court of Mali, Judgment No. 55 of 25 March 2010; Judgment No. 362 of November 2013, Judgment No. 93 of 17 April 2014. 14