treated unfairly or discriminated against in the proceedings before the Supreme Court. 73. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the allegation made in this regard and finds that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicants’ right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law, protected by Article 3(1) of the Charter as read together with Article 26 of the ICCPR in relation to the proceedings before the Supreme Court. B. Alleged violation of the right to have one’s cause heard 74. The Applicants allege that the Supreme Court violated article 122 of the Code of Civil, Commercial and Social Procedure, which sets the time limit for appeals at 30 days that is considered a principle of public order. It is the Applicants contention that such breach constitutes a violation of Article 7 of the Charter. 75. According to the Applicants, the Supreme Court should have dismissed, suo motu, the appeal lodged by the Ministry of Internal Security. *** 76. The Respondent State on its part argues that, under article 256 of Organic Law No. 046-2016 of 23 September 2016 on the organisation and operating rules of the Supreme Court, and the procedures followed before it, a rectification appeal “must be submitted within one month from the date of notification of the decision to be corrected”. 77. The Respondent State also contends that, pursuant to Articles 761 and 782 of Decree No. 09-220/P-RM of 11 May 2009 amending the Code of Civil, Commercial and Social Procedure, the Applicants or their legal representative were required to serve the judgment on the Ministry’s representatives, which they failed to do. It is the Respondent State’s contention that, as service was not effected, the time-limits are still open. 17