63. The Applicants contend that the Supreme Court’s decision breached the principle of equal treatment of persons in the same situation, namely, they and their colleagues, and therefore amounts to a violation of Article 3 of the Charter. 64. The Respondent State on its part contends that the Supreme Court reversed its decision when it realised that it had misinterpreted the law governing the training of national police officers. 65. It maintains that this jurisprudential reversal occurred well before the Applicants filed for appeal. The Respondent State points out that in its judgment No. 186 of 7 April 2016, the Supreme Court dismissed the Applicants’ request for regularization and, for the first time, held that “it is a general principle of civil service law that one civil servant cannot claim a right unlawfully granted to another”. 66. The Respondent State maintains that the Applicants wish to mislead this Court by claiming that all other officers enjoyed privileges, as if illegality were a source of accrued rights. *** 67. The Court notes that the right to full equality before the law also implies that “all are equal before the courts and tribunals”.15 In other words, law enforcement authorities must perform their duties without discrimination, whatever the situation. 68. The Court observes that the principle of equality before the law does not mean that judicial institutions must necessarily deal with all cases in the same manner as the manner of handling a case may depend on the particular circumstances of each case.16 15 Kijiji Isiaga v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (21 March 2018) 2 AfCLR 218, § 85. 16 Norbert Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (merits) (28 March 2014) 1 AfCLR 219, § 167. 15