that he was discriminated against in violation of Article 2 of the Charter. 16 57. In these circumstances, the Court finds that there is no basis for finding a violation and, therefore, holds that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicant’s right to non-discrimination protected under Article 2 of the Charter. B. Alleged violation of the right to equal protection of the law 58. The Applicant submits that his right under Article 3(2) of the Charter was violated insofar as the Court of Appeal refused to consider his additional grounds of appeal “on the sole ground that they did not feature in the memorandum of appeal filed with the court.” 59. The Respondent State disputes the Applicant’s submission and puts the Applicant to strict proof. It submits that during the proceedings before its Court of Appeal, the Applicant raised additional grounds of appeal without complying with the Court of Appeal Rules. Specifically, the Respondent State points out that under Rule 81(1) of its Court of Appeal Rules of 2009, any appellant who wishes to argue a ground of appeal which was not contained in his/her memorandum of appeal must first apply for leave of the court. The Respondent State therefore submits that in the absence of such a request, the Applicant cannot establish violation of his rights under Article 3(2) of the Charter. *** 60. Article 3(2) of the Charter provides that “every individual shall be entitled to equal protection of the law.” 61. As earlier pointed out, the burden of proving an alleged violation of a right lies with the party that makes the allegation. In the present case, therefore, 16 Sijaona Chacha Machera v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 035/2017 Judgment of 22 September 2022 (merits), § 82; Yassin Rashid Maige v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 018/2017 Judgment of 5 September 2023 (merits and reparations) § 124. 15