73. The Complainant alleges that his rights under Article 3 have been violated. The provision states that 1. EvenJ individual shall be equal before the law. 2. Even; individual shall be entitled to equal protection of the law. 74. In Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights and the Institute for Human Rights and Development (on behalf of Andrew Barclay Meldrum) v Republic of Zimbabwe, the Commission held that: 2D Article 3 guarantees fair and just treatment of individuals within the legal system of a given countn1, whereby even; individual is equal before the law and guaranteed equal protection of the law.21 75. The Commission has interpreted Article 3(1) as follows: The right to equality before the law means that individuals legally within the jurisdiction of a State 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 atl other citizens. Its meaning is the right to have ,the same procegures and principle.s .applied under the same conditions. The principle that all person_s are equal before the law ~ea~ that existing laws must be applied in the same manner to those subject to them. The right to equality before the law does not refer to the content of legislation, but rather exclusively to its enforcement. It means that judges and administration officials may not act arbitrarily in enforcing laws. 76. With regards to Article 3 (2), the'Commission held that: "Equal protection of the law means that no person or class of persons shall be denied the same protection of the laws which is enjoyed by other persons or class of persons in like circumstances in their livesiliberh;, properh; and in their pursuit of happiness"22 77. The Commission quoted its findings in Communication 293/04, reiterating that: " .. .equal protection of the law refers to the right of all persons to have the same access to the law and courts and to be treated equally by the law and courts, both in procedures and in the substance of the law. It is akin to the right to due process of law, but in particular applies to equal treatment as an element offundamental fairness ."23 78. In Meldrum, the Commission established a general test for assessing whether a violation of Article 3(2) has occurred. In evaluating whether the Complainant's deportation violated his rights, the Commission asked "Given the treatment Mr Meldrum was expose~ to, would it be argued as the Respondent State does, that 1/.'o•;-;;;-~,;;·;, .,~,'-1~<:>"cR.ET AR,,1 20 Egyptian Initiative (2006) para 173 Communication 294/2004 para 95 (/4/' ZLHR & IHRDA v Zimbabwe para 99 23 Meldrum (2004) para 100; Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights and the Institute fo~ 21 22 Rights and Development in Africa v. Republic of Zimbabwe ff ·\ ~· : :: : : : ~ J