transitional provisions applicable to the training of police officers. 5. Owing to the urgent need to expand the officer corps of the national police, the Respondent State’s authorities opted for recruitment through internal promotion within the police force. Pursuant to the Decree of 6 February 2006, the Minister of Internal Security selected police officers with higher qualifications based on very specific criteria, in particular, 15 years’ length of service in the police force and a qualification obtained before 31 July 2008. 6. Following the selection, officers who met the said criteria were identified and appointed as trainee police inspectors and superintendents. 7. It also emerges from the Application that the aforementioned Law No. 02056 of 2 December 2002 was subsequently repealed by Law No. 10-034 of 12 July 2010 on the status of officers of the National Police. 8. On 13 June 2014, the Applicants wrote to the Minister of Internal Security regarding their situation but did not receive any response. 9. On 12 November 2014, the Applicants filed a petition before the Administrative Section of the Supreme Court against the Minister of Internal Security, seeking regularization of their administrative situation on the grounds that other police officers in the same legal situation as themselves had been appointed as trainee police inspectors and superintendents, in order to continue their training at the police academy. The Applicants aver that the act of treating some police officers differently as compared to others constitutes a violation of the principle of “equal treatment of citizens in access to public services”. By Judgment No. 295 of 17 December 2015, the Administrative Section of the Supreme Court issued an order regularizing the Applicants’ administrative situation. 10. On 27 January 2016, the General Directorate of State Litigation (hereinafter referred to as “GDSL”) appealed the aforementioned decision, requesting 3