to pay a fee in lieu of blood donation, the Commission finds that these are statements of fact that are not supported by any legal argument or supporting documentation. In particular, it is not enough to say that there is a compulsory blood donation by the spouses of pregnant women or the payment of a consideration in terms of money, it must also be supported by evidence. In the absence of such evidence, the Commission concludes that there is no discrimination based on this allegation. 139. As a result, Article 2 of the African Charter and Article 2 of the Maputo Protocol have not been violated. On the violation of the right to equality 140. The right to equality is protected by Article 3 of the African Charter, which states: "(1) All persons shall enjoy full equality before the law. 2. All persons are entitled to equal protection of the law. This has two components, on the one hand the right to equality before the law and on the other hand the right to equal protection of the law. 141.In Isiaga v Tanzania, the African Court noted that the right to equal protection of the law means that "the law shall prohibit discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and-effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, Umguage, religion, political or other-opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status".51Thus, the right to equality before the law means that all are equal before the courts and tribunals. 142. As for the right to equal protection of the law envisaged in Article 3 of the African Charter, the Commission-stated in Spilg and Mack & DITSHWANELO (on behalf of Lehlohonolo Bernard Kobedil V. Botswana that it consists of the right of all persons to """ have equal access to the law and the courts and to be treated equally by the law and the courts= . As a result, to prove a violation of Article 3 of the African Charter, it must be shown that the victims did not receive favourable protection similar to that accorded to others in the same situation. , 143. In the present case, the Complainants do not show how the victims have benefited from differential protection by the law and courts of the Respondent State. 144.As a result, Article 3 of the African Charter has not been violated. On the violation of the right to information 27