courts also show that PW1 gave a clear account of what transpired when the Applicant and the other two persons entered the room and testified that she clearly identified the Applicant who was her neighbour and well known to her.28 Further, according to the record before the Court, PW1 named the Applicant at the earliest possible time to her friend, PW2 and to the police. 78. It follows from the foregoing that the domestic courts assessed the circumstances in which the crime was committed, to eliminate possible mistaken identity and they found that the Applicant was positively identified as having committed the crime. 79. It is worth noting that in the present application, the Applicant has not provided evidence that any law or statute applied in the proceedings involving him runs counter to the right to non-discrimination, equality before the law and equal protection of the law. Further, the Applicant has not shown that he was treated differently as compared to other persons who were in a situation similar to his. The Court also notes, from the record, that there is no evidence to the effect that domestic proceedings were conducted based on any law or statute, which includes different provisions in respect of the Applicant as opposed to other litigants regarding the right to have his cause heard. 80. In light of the foregoing, the Court dismisses the Applicant’s allegations that he was not properly identified and that he was subjected to discrimination and unequal treatment in the proceedings before domestic courts. The Court, therefore, finds that the Respondent State did not violate Articles 2, 3 and 7(1) of the Charter read jointly in respect of the Applicant’s identification. 28 Ibid. 19