Communication 341/07 - Equality Now v Ethiopia against a woman because she is a woman or that affects women disproportionately."16 145. Thus distinctively exacting violence on someone simply because she is a woman, as opposed to being a man (the comparator) or indeed exacting more violence on women as compared to men in the same circumstances amounts to discrimination. In Communication 323/06: Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights and INTERIGHTS v Egypt (2011) ACHPR the Commission posed the following questions to determine whether there had been discrimination: "Whether the women and male protesters had similar treatment; and whether the treatment was 'fair and just', given that all women and men in the scene were under the same circumstances, that is, exercising their political rights." 17 146. The Commission concluded that the victims were exclusively women and there was no evidence showing that male protesters at the scene of the demonstrations were also stripped naked and sexually harassed as the women were. On that basis the Commission found a violation of Article 2 on prohibition of discrimination. 147. To make out a claim of violation of Article 3 as read together with Article 2 of the Charter, the complainant must make out a prima facie case that the respondent state had not given the [victim] the same treatment it accorded to the others in analogous situations or that, the respondent state had accorded less favourable treatment to the victim than that accorded to others in relevantly analogous situation, or indeed that the State imposed a disproportionate burden or restriction on the victim relative to that imposed on others in relevantly analogous situations.18 The complainant must identify the comparator and show how the treatment complained of and that of the comparator are comparable.19 148. When such a case is made out, the Respondent State has two options. It may demonstrate with cogent evidence that the prima facie case is factually misconceived in that the treatment exacted on the victims was also exacted on others in the same situation as the victim or that the circumstances of the victims are relevantly different from those of the comparator. Secondly, the Respondent State may admit 16 GR No. 19 "'Violence Against Women" Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Aizainst Women (1992) para. 6 17 Communication 323/06 - Egyptian Initiativefor Personal Rights and 1NTER/GHTS vEgypt (2011) ACHPR panu18 Communication 293/2004, Zimbabwe Lawyersfor Human Rights and the Institutefor Human Rights and. Development v Zimbabwe (2008) ACHPR para. 127; Communication 294/2004, Zimbabwe Lawyersfor Hi ft Institutefor Human Rights and Development in Africa v Zimbabwe, n 14 above, para. 101 19 Lithgow and others vthe United Kingdom, App. No. 28627/95, Eur. Comm'n H.R. (1986) 8 EHRR 32?