i -.J 00405i " * 219. Refuting the Applicant's allegation , the Respondent State submits that the fact of having set up an ad hoc commission of inquiry is in consonance with the law since criminal investigation which is generally conducted by criminal police officers may also be carried out by any other entity duly constituted by the Public Prosecutor's Office. It further submits that , in the instant case , the joint commission set up by the State Attorney was intended to preserve the Applicant's rights in the best possible way, adding that the Applicant's allegations are in reality intended to claim special treatment for himself, and that the issue is in no way that of substantiating any violation of his right to equal protection of the law. With regard to the allegation that section 12 of CRIET Act is discriminatory, the Respondent State prays the Court to disregard this additional submission . *** 220. The Court notes that the allegations of violation of the Applicant's right to equal protection of the law as well as the right not to be discriminated against are perceived as being at two levels: that is, the level of the preliminary investigation conducted in October 2016, and at the level of Application of the law establishing CRIET. 221. The Court reiterates that equal protection of the law and non-discrimination presupposes that the law provides for everyone and that it is applicable to everyone in equal measure without discrimination. The Court also reiterates that violation of the rights to equal protection of the law and non-discrimination presupposes that persons in a similar or identical situation have been treated differently32. 222. At the level of preliminary investigation, the Court notes that as far back as 29 October 2016, the day after the Applicant's arrest, the Public Prosecutor, by office memorandum, set up a Joint Judicial Commission of Inquiry with the mission "to Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania JUdgment, Merits op. cit. § 140; Application No, 032/2015 , Judgment of 21/21/2018, (Merits) Kijiji Isiaga v. United Republic of Tanzan ia, (herein-after 32 refer~s " :Siaga v U~d I R;7 C of Tenzeni g Ud ment") 1 : cP 2F ~