law provided him the option to do so.*! The Applicant's allegations are therefore unfounded. 73.Accordingly, the Court finds that Article 7(1)(d) of the Charter has not been violated. B. Alleged violation of the right to equal protection of the law and equality before the law 74. The Applicant alleges that his designation as a "contracted staff" by the Supreme Court, different constitutes from that granted a discriminatory to other officials differential treatment in the same situation, that violates the principle of equality before the law. 75. The Applicant further submits that, the fact that the Supreme Court found the dismissal unlawful without ordering its annulment and his reinstatement, constitutes a breach of equality before the law since the same court had, in two (2) previous cases, ordered the reinstatement of two (2) employees of the company together with the payment of wages accruing to them. According to the Applicant, without providing sufficient justification as to why treated in the same way, the Supreme his case was not Court failed to respect the prohibition of any form of discrimination before the law. Hike 76, The Court notes that Article 3 of the Charter guarantees the right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law in the following terms: '"1..Every individual shall be equal before the law. 2. Every individual shall be entitled to equal protection of the law.” 31 See Law No. 21/2012 of 14/6/ 2012 on the Code of Civil, Commercial, Social and Administrative Procedure. Articles 99-105 (repealed in 2018 and replaced by Law No. 22/2008 of 29/4/2018 on the Code of Civil, Commercial, Social and Administrative Procedure; see Articles 103-109 available in the legislative database of the International Labor Organization https:/Avww.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/natlex4.detail?p_isn=94327&p_lang=en (accessed on 13/6/ 2020 19