his/her attachment to other individuals. The Commission thus finds the requirement that an individual can only exercise the right to stand for the post of a President not only if he/she is born in Cote d’lvoire, but also that his parents must be born in Cote d’lvoire unreasonable and unjustifiable, and find this an unnecessary restriction on the right to participate in government guaranteed under Article 13 of the African Charter. Article 35 is also discriminatory because it applies different standards to the same categories of persons, that is persons born in Cote d’Ivoire are now treated based on the places of origin of their parents, a phenomenon which is contrary to the spirit of Article 2of the African Charter. 12 87. This was also the Commission’s position in Legal Resources Foundation / Zambia , where the African Commission held that the right to equality is very important. It means that citizens should expect to be treated fairly and justly within the legal system and be assured of equal treatment before the law and equal enjoyment of the rights available to all other citizens. The fight to equality is important for a second reason. Equality or lack of its affects the capacity of one to enjoy many other rights. For example one who bears the burden of disadvantage because of one’s place of birth or social origin suffers indignity as a human being and equal and proud citizen. He may vote for others but has limitations when it comes to standing for office. In other words, the country may be deprived of the leadership and resourcefulness such a person may bring to national life. 88. The Complainant also alleges the violation by the Respondent State of Article 3 of the African Charter which stipulates: “1 - Every individual shall be equal before the law 2 - Every individual shall be entitled to equal protection of the law”. 89. The Respondent State argues that the immunity granted to the perpetrators of the events which th brought about the change of Government on 24 December 1999 is neither total nor limitless in time, and that it only covers “the Members of the National Committee {or Public Security (CNSP) and all the perpetrators of the events”. Therefore, the other perpetrators of the looting, whether civilians or military, committed during the military transition period, are not covered by this immunity. With regard to the possibility of the victims Instituting legal proceedings in order to obtain compensation for the wrongs they have suffered, the Respondent State contends that there is no inequality as no victim can be allowed to institute proceedings against the people benefiting from the amnesty. 90. It appears therefore that “the Members of the National Committee for Public Security (CNSP)" had total and complete immunity, and no action could be brought against them by any body for whatever reason. 91. Over the years, the strict interpretation of clemency powers or pardons has been the subject at considerable scrutiny by international human rights bodies and legal scholars. There has been consistent international jurisprudence suggesting that the adoption of amnesties leading to impunity for serious human rights has become a rule of customary international law. In a report entitled Question of the Impunity of perpetrators of human rights violations (civil and political), prepared by Mr Louis Joinet for the Sub-commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, pursuant to Sub-commission decision 1996/119, it was noted that [quoted]“amnesty cannot be accorded to perpetrators of violations before the victims have obtained justice by means of an effective remedy”[/quote] and that “the fight to justice entails obligations for the State: to investigate 13 violations, to prosecute the perpetrators and, if their guilt is established, to punish them”. 92. The Report went on to state that “even when intended to establish conditions conducive to a peace agreement or to foster national reconciliation, amnesty and other measures of clemency shall be kept within certain bounds, namely: (a) the perpetrators of serious crimes under international law may not benefit from such measures until such time as the State has met their obligations to investigate violations, to take appropriate measures, in respect of the perpetrators, particularly in the area of justice, by ensuring that they are prosecuted, tried and duly punished, to provide victims with effective remedies and reparation for the injuries suffered, and to take acts to prevent the recurrence 14 of such atrocities.” 93. In its General Comment No 20 on Article 7 of the ICCPR, the UN Human Rights Committee noted that “amnesties are generally incompatible with the duty of States to investigate such acts; to guarantee freedom from such acts within their jurisdiction and to ensure that they do not occur in the future. States may not deprive individuals of the right to an effective remedy, including compensation