94. The Complainants contend that the Respondent State adopted and implemented measures which are inconsistent with the victims’ rights (i) not to be discriminated against on the basis of their religion, and (ii) to freedom of religion. The impugned measures are: (a) confiscation of the victims’ IDs, (b) requiring that their daughters’ religious identity in their birth certificates be amended to “Muslim”, (c) ordering the school attended by the victims’ three daughters not to accept IDs bearing “Baha’i” as their religious. The Complainants submit that these measures constitute failure to recognise the victims’ above rights, and consequently amount to violation of Article 1 of the Charter. (ii) Alleged violation of Article 2 of the Charter 95. The Complainants contend that Article 2 of the Charter guarantees the principle of non-discrimination whose primacy and prohibition are affirmed in the Charter, the Commission’s jurisprudence, and entrenched in international human rights law generally.8 96. Regarding the meaning of ‘discrimination’, the Complainants rely on the HRC Committee General Comment No. 18 in which the term is interpreted “to imply any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference which is used on any grounds such as … religion, …and which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by all persons, on an equal footing, of all the rights and freedoms.” They also refer to the case of Carlos Garcia Saccone v Argentina in which the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights interpreted the term ‘unequal treatment’ as “the denial of a right to someone which is accorded to others; diminishing the right to someone while fully granting it to others; imposition of a duty on some which is not imposed on others; the imposition of a duty on some which is imposed less strenuously on others.”9 97. Regarding ‘prohibited discrimination,’ the Complainants invite the Commission to draw inspiration from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) which propounds that prohibited discrimination is constituted by (a) a differential treatment of persons in analogous or relevantly similar situations, which (b) has no objective and reasonable justification. The Complainants cite Communication 211/98 – Legal Resources Foundation v Zambia (2001) ACHPR para. 63; Communication 245/02 – Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v Zimbabwe (2006) ACHPR para.169; and provisions of various international and regional international human rights instruments which provide for equality and non-discrimination to illustrate the primacy of equality and nondiscrimination in the enjoyment of rights and freedoms by all. The Commission does not consider it necessary to reproduce all the provisions for the present purposes. 9 Carlos Garcia Saccone v Argentina, Case 11.671, Report Nº 8/98, Inter-Am. C. H. R., OEA/Ser.L/V/II.95 Doc. 7 rev. at 193 (1997). 8 15