Arusha, Tanzania Website: www.african-court.org Telephone: +255-272-510-510 JUDGMENT SUMMARY within the Respondent State’s legal system, is an extraordinary remedy that no applicant is required to exhaust. The Respondent State’s objection was thus dismissed. The Court while observing that no objection had been raised with respect to the other admissibility requirements, nonetheless, in line with Rule 50(1) of the Rules, assessed all admissibility criteria provided for in Rule 50(2) of the Rules, which in substance restates the provisions of Article 56 of the Charter, and found that the Application fulfilled the necessary requirements. The Court then considered whether the Respondent State had violated Articles 2, 4, 6, and 7 of the Charter. On the alleged violation of the right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law, the Court noted that the burden of proof for a human rights violation rested with the Applicant unless the Court otherwise decided. In this Application, the Applicant alleged that his right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law was violated without providing any grounds to substantiate his claims. Consequently, the Court dismissed this allegation as being unsubstantiated. Regarding the claim on the violation of the right to the respect of one’s life and integrity of the person, the Court began by recalling that the right to life, under Article 4 of the Charter, is inviolable and shall be respected and not be arbitrarily deprived under any circumstances. The Court reiterated that the burden of substantiating a claim for a violation of a human right vests on anyone who alleges. The Applicant having failed to provide any ground or evidence to substantiate his allegations, the Court dismissed the claim. Concerning the allegations of violation of the right to liberty and security of his person, the Court asserted that the Charter strictly prohibits any arbitrary arrest and detention. It reiterated its position in its earlier judgments that arrest or detention becomes arbitrary if it is not in accordance with the law, lacks clear and reasonable grounds or is conducted in the absence of procedural safeguards against arbitrariness. In this case, the Court found that the Applicant had made a general allegation of a violation of his rights under Article 6 of the Charter with no evidence to substantiate the allegations. Given the preceding, his allegations were dismissed. 3