49. The Respondent State submits generally, that it has not violated the Applicant’s right provided under Article 3 of the Charter. *** 50. The Court notes that Article 3 of the Charter provides that: 1. Every individual shall be equal before the law 2. Every individual shall be entitled to equal protection of the law. 51. The Court observes that although the Applicant alleges violation of his right and entitlement to be treated equally before the law and to equal protection of the law he did not substantiate this allegation. Nevertheless, the Court recalls that the general principle is that the burden of proof of human rights violation lies with s/he who alleges.18 It has also held that, when making a claim in relation to Article 3 of the Charter, the Applicant has to demonstrate how the Respondent State’s conduct infringed upon his rights of equal protection before the law to justify the violation of this provision.19 52. It follows from these provisions that Article 3 guarantees the right for every person to enjoy equal protection both in the law and in the course of its application without any discrimination. As such, violation of the right to an equal protection of the law would be established in instances where an Applicant is treated differently from an accused person in the same situation as his. 53. The Court observes that, in the present Application, although the Applicant alleges violation of his right and entitlement to be treated equally before the law and to equal protection of the law, he does not substantiate this allegation. The Court further notes that there is no evidence on the record that the Applicant was not afforded equality before the law or was treated differently from other persons who were in a similar situation as him. 18 Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 492; Jeshi v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 24. 19 Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 140. 14