consequently, the Court finds that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicant’s right to a fair trial guaranteed under Article 7 of the Charter. B. Allegation that the manner of assessment of evidence was discriminatory 76. The Applicant asserts that the national courts, while examining his case, did not consider all the relevant facts and arguments that he submitted relating to the evidence used to convict him. By doing so, the Applicant argues, the Respondent State violated his right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law under Articles 3 of the Charter. 77. The Respondent State contends that the allegation by the Applicant that his rights under Article 3 of the Charter were violated lacks merit. It asserts that Article 3 of the Charter guarantees fair and just treatment of individuals within a legal system of a given country. In the present Application, the Respondent State submits that the Applicant has failed to establish how he was either discriminated against or not treated equally as other accused persons during the trial and subsequent appeals thereof. *** 78. The Court notes that Article 3 of the Charter guarantees the right to equality 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 79. The Court notes that the right to equal protection of the law requires that “the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race,