113. Accordingly, the Court holds that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicants’ right to equal access to the public services, protected by Article 13(2) of the Charter read together with Article 25(c) of the ICCPR. C. Alleged violation of the right to promotion to a higher rank 114. The Applicants allege that their unequal treatment in relation to some of their police colleagues with the same qualifications and length of service violated their right to work. In this vein, they assert that the Supreme Court, in its judgments, regularised the situation of these colleagues while declining to promote the Applicants to a higher rank. Consequently, the Applicants alleges that the Respondent State violated Article 15 of the Charter and Article 7(c) of the ICESCR. ** 115. In its Response, the Respondent State asserts that the Decree of 6 February 2006 sets out the special provisions applicable to the various senior police officers, including Superintendents and Inspectors. 116. The Respondent State further avers that Articles 14 and 15 of the aforementioned decree provide that recruitment into the corps of Police Officers and Police Inspectors shall be through training of police officers authorised to undergo training that entitles them to change categories. In addition, Police Inspectors and police officers who have successfully obtained qualifications equivalent to the Master’s degree are integrated into the corps of Police Superintendents. 117. The same provisions also regulate the training framework, taking into account the specificity of each police corps. 118. The Respondent State further submits that a police officer must obtain authorisation in order to undertake the training. To obtain such authorisation, a police inspector or non-commissioned officer must have served at his rank for at least five years, three of which must be post26