97. The requirement of equality before the law is of fundamental importance to human rights, especially as it is a necessary condition for the enjoyment of a number of other related rights. It is therefore no surprise that the founding instruments of international human rights law guarantee the right to equality before the law. Thus, Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights unequivocally proclaims that: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” Article 6 of the same instrument stresses that “Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.” The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also provides for equality before the law as a preliminary, central and essential legal prerogative. Article 26 of the Covenant stipulates that: “All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law”. 14 98. Included as a fundamental clause in most national constitutions, the general principle of equality before the law requires that people in a similar situation in some respects should be treated similarly.15 99. The principle of equality before the law is paramount since it entails the right, for a competent authority in a given dispute, to ensure that the parties in a dispute be placed on equal footing not only in the manner in which the law is formulated, but also, as in this case, the manner in which the implementation of that law is conducted. Thus, the practice, especially that of the Constitutional Court of South Africa, has enshrined equality before the law as a practice that goes beyond formal equality to substantive or achieved equality16. Furthermore, though authorized in specific cases, unequal treatment should always be justified.17 100. The Complainant’s main contention in this case is that the Supreme Court failed to give him the same treatment as it did his adversary, Pharmakina Company, in the dispute between the two parties. Indeed, the rejection of his application for a four-month deferment and the prohibition imposed by the Congolese Supreme Court on the production of his case file placed the Complainant in a position of imbalance regarding the application of the right to equality before the law. 101. From an analysis of the submissions of the parties, it appears to the Commission that the Complainant did not have the same opportunity as his This legal prerogative is enshrined in Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I Currie & J de Waal The Bill of Rights Handbook (2005) 230. 16 See, for example, National Coalition for Gay & Lesbian Equality v. Minister of Justice 1999 (1) SA 6 (CC) para 62; Minister of Finance v. Van Heerden 2004 (6) SA 121 (CC) para 26. 17 Op cit. 14 15 18