96. On its part, the Respondent State contends that the rights and duties of all citizens are guaranteed under its Constitution and that all laws have to comply with its Constitution. It avers, however, that the constitutional guarantees do not absolve the individual from his or her duty to abide by the law and comply with their constitutional duties. 97. According to the Respondent State, the submission of the Applicants of the discriminatory effect of the impugned law has not been substantiated and is “unfounded”. While conceding that the CPA provides differential treatment, the Respondent State avers that, such differential treatment is justified by the objectives it seeks to achieve, that is, appearance of the accused in court, public peace and security. 98. Citing the case of Mahender Chawla and others v. Union of India, the Respondent State avers that Section 148(5) of the CPA not only serves a legitimate aim but also ensures the proper administration of justice. 99. Citing also the matter of African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v. Kenya, the Respondent State submits that differential treatment is not generally proscribed but only becomes discriminatory when it is not objective or reasonably justified. 100. The Respondent State argues that the Applicants did not furnish the Court with empirical evidence to substantiate their assertion that accused persons denied bail under Section 148(5) of the CPA are treated differently in order to arrive at the conclusion that Section 148(5) of the CPA perpetuates indirect discrimination. 101. Citing the decision in the matter of Alex Thomas v. Tanzania, the Respondent State contends that the allegation in relation to the right to nondiscrimination and the right to equality has not been proved and thus should be dismissed for lack of merit. *** 23