even though they were in a similar situation in terms of graduation date, length of service and rank.29 86. The Applicants thus submit that the Supreme Court’s decision resulted in a breach of equality between them and their police colleagues, in violation of Article 3 of the Charter. ** 87. In response, the Respondent State submits that the Supreme Court overturned its decision because it realised that it had misinterpreted the legislation governing the training of police officers. 88. It is the Respondent State’s contention that this jurisprudential turnaround occurred well before the Applicants lodged their appeal, in particular by Judgment No. 186 of 7 April 2016, in which the Supreme Court dismissed the Applicants’ application for regularisation, stating for the first time that “it is a general principle of public service that a public servant cannot avail himself of a right illegally obtained by another; that he who claims to have a right is required to prove it”. 89. The Respondent State also submits that the Applicants are intent on misleading this Court in arguing that all other police officers benefited from the privileges, as if illegality constituted a source of rights accruing to them. *** 90. The Court recalls that the right to equality before the law requires that “all persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals”.30 In other words, the entities responsible for applying or enforcing the law must treat all persons without discrimination. 29 Supreme Court of Mali, Judgment No. 55 of 25 March 2010; Judgment No. 362 of November 2013 Judgment No. 93 of 17 April 2014. 30 Kijiji Isiaga v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (21 March 2018) 2 AfCLR 218, § 85. 21