No. 6 of 1994. It emerges from the file that the armed robbery was committed on 29 March 2005, that is, after the said laws were enacted. It follows that the Applicants were convicted and punished on the basis of legislation that existed and was in force at the time of commission of the crime. 122. Moreover, the Court observes that the laws in question, specifically Sections 285 and 286 of the Penal Code, provide a clear definition of the elements that constitute the crime of armed robbery. The domestic courts also found that these sections were complied with in the case of the Applicants. The Second Applicant does not provide any explanation as to why he believes these sections did not sufficiently define the offence of armed robbery, nor does he specify which part of these sections he finds unclear. 123. In view of the foregoing, the Court dismisses the contention that Sections 285 and 286 of the Respondent State’s Penal Code does not define the offence of armed robbery. The Court holds, therefore, that the Respondent State did not violate Article 7(2) of the Charter. B. Alleged violation of the right to non-discrimination 124. The Second Applicant asserts that the Respondent State violated his right under Article 2 of the Charter. He asserts that the analysis and scrutiny of evidence by domestic Courts was not based on objective appreciation of the entire evidence on record and on equal treatment of the adverse parties. 125. Without responding directly to this allegation, the Respondent State in its Response, reiterates that the domestic courts properly examined all evidence on record and found the Applicant and his co-accused guilty as charged. *** 126. The Court notes that Article 2 of the Charter stipulates that every individual shall enjoy the rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Charter without 32