allegations beyond reasonable doubt. The Applicant further contends that the Court of Appeal should have considered that the evidence had to be corroborated by his witness. 57. The Respondent State submits that this allegation was never raised before the Court of Appeal. It further submits that the said court examined the credibility of the victim and noted that the high court was satisfied that the victim understood the nature of an oath and was a credible witness. 58. The Respondent State further contends that the trial court confirmed that the witness exhibited sufficient aptitude to give evidence. It notes that the victim’s age was never in contention and was not the subject of any claims during the trial, either in the court of first instance or in the Court of Appeal. Furthermore, the Applicant never raised his concern about corroborating prosecution evidence as a ground for appeal before the Court of Appeal. 59. The Respondent State contends that the trial court found that the prosecution’s evidence proved the facts beyond reasonable doubt. It avers that Court of Appeal considered that the appeal lacked merit and that there were no substantial grounds for appeal. *** 60. 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”. 61. The Court recalls that in line with its consistent case-law, equal protection of the law presupposes that the law protects all persons without distinction.13 It follows that, in order to establish a violation of this right, it is necessary to 13 Harold Mbalanda Munthali v. Republic of Malawi, ACtHPR, Application No. 022/2017, Judgment of 23 June 2022 (merits and reparations), § 81; Action pour la Protection des Droits de l’Homme v. Republic of Côte d’Ivoire (merits) (18 November 2016) 1 AfCLR 668, § 146. 14