rights of the Applicants to participate in the government of their country. This, according to the Applicants, violated their right to equality and equal protection of the law. 49. The Respondent State did not make any submission in respect of this issue. *** 50. The Court recalls that Article 3(2) of the Charter provides that: “every individual shall be entitled to equal protection of the law.” 51. As the Court has previously held, the principle of equality before the law, which is implicit in the principle of equal protection of the law, does not necessarily require equal treatment in all instances and may allow differentiated treatment of individuals placed in different situations.7 52. The Court also notes that a violation of Article 3(2) of the Charter does not necessarily follow from an alleged instance of differentiated treatment. Notably, the burden of proof is on the party that alleges, and general statements to the effect that a right has been violated do not suffice to establish a violation of the Charter.8 53. In the present case, the Court observes that the Applicants merely allege that the Supreme Court of Appeal placed undue emphasis on procedural compliance in respect of registration of voters, without stating how doing so led to a breach of their right to equality. They do not also demonstrate how the Supreme Court of Appeal’s emphasis on procedural compliance run counter to established rules in the national law or violated their right to equality or equal protection of the law. The Applicants should have provided evidence as to how they were treated differently from other persons in the same situation. 7 Jebra Kambole v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (15 July 2020) 4 AfCLR 460, § 88. 8 George Maili Kemboge v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (11 May 2018) 2 AfCLR 369, § 51 and Minani Evarist v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (21 September 2018) 2 AfCLR 402, § 75. 14