c. Title Deed No. 25096 of the citizen Mainassara and Title Deed No. 30637, assigned to Summerset, have the same origin. 166. As a third plea, the Applicants maintain, in essence, that they demonstrated that Mr. MAINASARA Amadou Oumarou, purchaser of a parcel of land adjacent to the land of Gountou Yena and which had a legal significance identical to the land in dispute, benefited from treatment preferential and discriminatory in relation to that portion, because of his economic wealth and his proximity to political power; That the elements of Title Deed No. 25096, issued to Mainassara, expressly declare that the land results from a SUBDIVISION of Title Deed No. 18; That a careful reading of the provisions of Title Deed No. 25096 proves that it is the same geographical area; That Mainassara's title deed was, in fact, established on the basis of customary possession certificates, identical to those presented by the Applicants; That in order to declare the violation of the right against discrimination verified, it is not necessarily necessary to agree with the Applicants regarding the property right; it suffices to recognize that two parties who had the same legal rights - customary possession - were treated very differently, apparently due to different political and economic influence and without legitimate justification. 167. The Applicants concluded that their allegations of discrimination prevail. 168. In its response, the Respondent, in turn, upheld these two grounds invoked above by the Applicants as unfounded to determine the Revision of the Judgment rendered. The Court’s Analysis 32