be accorded people finding themselves in similar situations”. Thus, examining the allegation of the violation of the principle of equality requires that, at least two similar legal situations be put side by side, so as to compare, and find out whether the treatment was concretely meted out to either one or both of them. See also NATIONAL COORDINATING GROUP OF DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE COCOA- COFFEE SECTOR (CNDD) V. COTE D’ IVIORE (2004-2009) CCJELR PG 328 PARA 58. The question as to whether the amendment is proportional can be answered by weighing the impact, nature and extent of the limitation. Such limitations and or amendments must be proportionate with and absolutely necessary for the advantages sought to be obtained. It is an elementary principle of law that he who asserts must prove. In Falana & anor V. Republic of Benin & 2 Ors JUDGMENT NO: ECW/CCJ/JUD/02/12 (unreported), this Court held that “as always, the onus of proof is on a party who asserts a fact and who will fail if that fact fails to attain that standard of proof that will persuade the Court to believe the statement of the claim”. Having examined the Plaintiffs application, the Court is of the view that the substance of the Plaintiffs allegation borders on the internal affairs of the Defendant and does not raise any issue of human right violation. The Plaintiffs in this case have not proved that the amendment was unreasonable, discriminatory and unjust or 12