distinction of any kind based on race, ethnic group, colour and any other status. The provision seeks to ensure that individuals are not subjected to discriminatory or differential treatment vis-à-vis others of same or similar status. 127. In the present case, the Second Applicant merely alleges that the Respondent State violated his right to non-discrimination, but does not provide any explanation on how he was treated differently compared to other individuals with a similar status as him. Regarding his reference to the assessment of evidence by domestic courts, the Court recalls its earlier finding in paragraphs 85-88 above where it concluded that there was no apparent error in the way domestic courts examined the evidence that they relied upon to convict the Applicants. 128. Consequently, the Court holds that the Respondent State did not violate Article 2 of the Charter. VIII. REPARATIONS 129. The Applicants pray the Court “to restore justice where it is overlooked and quash both the conviction and sentence and set [them] at liberty”. 130. Additionally, the Second Applicant prays the Court to grant him reparations pursuant to Article 27 of the Protocol. 131. The Respondent State contends that the Applicants are imprisoned as a result of the crime that they committed and thus, their request for reparations should be dismissed. *** 132. The Court notes that Article 27(1) of the Protocol stipulates that “[lf] the Court finds that there has been violation of a human or peoples’ right, it shall 33