Communication 431/12 – Thomas Kwoyelo v. Uganda other citizens. Its meaning is the right to have the same procedures and principles applied under the same conditions.42 160. Equal protection of the law under Article 3(2) on the other hand, means that no person or class of persons shall be denied the same protection of the laws which is enjoyed by other persons or class of persons in like circumstances in their lives, liberty, property, and in their pursuit of happiness. It simply means that similarly situated persons must receive similar treatment under the law.43 161. In the instant case, what the Complainant is alleging is not that the law - the Amnesty Act - does not provide equal protection to the Victim. Rather what is alleged is that the Amnesty Act has been applied in a discriminatory manner to the Victim resulting in a violation of his right. The issue, therefore, relates to a different application of the law to similar circumstances, which falls within the ambit of Article 3 (2) of the Charter. Equality before the law, as expounded above, does not only refer to the content of legislation, but also to its enforcement. It means that judges and administration officials may not act arbitrarily in enforcing laws. 162. Nevertheless, not all discriminations are tantamount to a violation of the right to equal treatment. In some instances, discrimination, in law or practice, can be justified. International human rights law recognizes what are called positive or justified discriminations. It is, however, noteworthy that as the right to equality and non-discrimination form the bedrock of human rights law, there are stringent requirements that a discriminatory act or differential treatment should fulfil in order to be justified. As the Commission has opined in the case of Kenneth Good v. Botswana, and later reaffirmed in Dabalorivhuwa Patriotic Front v. the Republic of South Africa, a differential treatment is considered a violation of the principles ACHPR, Communication 294/06 – Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights and Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa v Zimbabwe (2009), para. 96. See also Communication 323/06 – Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights & INTERIGHTS V. Egypt, (2011) para. 173. 43 ACHPR, Communication 294/06 – Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights and Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa v Zimbabwe (2009), para. 99. 42 43 62nd Ordinary Session, 25 April – 9 July 2018