ICCPR. They cite the Court’s decision in the matter of African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v. Kenya, that “… a distinction or differential treatment becomes discrimination and hence contrary to Article 2 of the Charter, when it does not have objective and reasonable justification and, in the circumstances where it is not necessary and proportional.” 91. They further submit that in the matter of Jebra Kambole v. Tanzania, the Court stipulated that discrimination may be occasioned directly or indirectly. Furthermore, that indirect discrimination is “an effects-based concept”. 92. The Applicants argue that Section 148(5)(b) of the CPA does not specify the kind of offences it envisions and that it discriminates against a person who has already served a sentence of three (3) years imprisonment. 93. The Applicants also contend that Section 148(5)(e) of the CPA violates the right to non-discrimination. They argue that Section 148(5)(e) of the CPA discriminates against accused persons for offences involving money or property exceeding Tanzanian shillings ten million (TZS 10,000,000) and who cannot deposit half the amount or value of the property and the other half through a secured bond. 94. The Applicants argue that the discrimination they are referring to is further evidenced by the fact that bail is available to all accused persons in Zanzibar which is in contrast to what obtains in Tanzania mainland. 95. The Applicants lastly submit that the Respondent State has not furnished the Court with evidence that accused persons who have been granted bail under the criteria set out in Section 148(5)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of the CPA have caused insecurity to the society, breach of peace, interfered with ongoing investigation or killed witnesses. * 22