and equality before the law presuppose that persons in a similar or identical situation not be treated differently.18 103. In the present case, the Court notes that expropriation of the Applicants’ land took place in 1988 under Law No. 71-340 of 12 July 1971 and its implementing Decree 71-341 of 12 July 1971, whereas the situations to which they compare their case occurred later, that is, in December 1997 and March 2020, under Decree No. 96-884 of 25 October 1996. On this point, the Court considers that the conditions under which the Applicants’ property was expropriated are not identical to those to which they compare theirs, insofar as Decree No. 71-341 of 12 July 1971, unlike Decree No. 96884 of 25 October 1996, did not contain any express provision on the extinction of customary rights. 104. Regarding the extinction of customary rights on expropriated land, the Court notes that following Decree No. 96-884 of 25 October 1996, the Administrative Commission provided for in Article 5 of the said Decree, which is responsible for identifying expropriated land and the owners thereof for purposes of determining compensation and reparation, initiated discussions with the Applicants with a view to compensating them. On 13 January 2003, the Tribunal of First Instance of Yopougon delivered its judgement in which it fixed the compensation amount. 105. The Court observes that although the Applicants were not compensated prior to the 1988 constructions, they were subsequently compensated after the 1996 Decree, based on the provisions of that Decree. 106. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicants’ rights to equality before the law and the right to equal protection of the law protected under Article 3 of the Charter. 18 Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 140; Kijiji Isiaga v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (2018) 2 AfCLR 218, § 85. 26