144. To allege violation of the provisions of Article 2 of the Charter, the Complainant argues that the Dioulas, meaning those of the first generation, were subjected to discrimination by the Respondent State on the basis of ethnicity and religion. Referring to General Observation No. 18 in its ruling on Meldrum v. Zimbabwe, the Commission defined discrimination as « Any act aimed at distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on one of the reasons listed under Article 2 of the Charter, and which aims at or has the effect of annulling or restricting recognition, enjoyment or exercise by all persons and on an equal basis, of all rights and freedoms ».38 The Commission considers that although the letter does not state so expressly, the spirit of the provisions of Article 2 of the Charter and of the definition in Meldrum suggest that there is no need to prove an intention to discriminate. Indeed, this definition actually includes situations in which a law or a neutral or an apparently non-discriminatory measure produces the effects of an unjustified distinction. 145. Furthermore, the list under Article 2 of the Charter is neither absolute nor comprehensive. It is merely indicative. It is a form of unjustified discrimination which is of a prohibitory nature, and there is, therefore, the possibility of conducting unjustified discrimination prohibition compliance test when a standard or act is alleged to have gone beyond this prohibition. In Good v. Botswana, the Commission established that the violation of the principle of non-discrimination occurs when: a) persons in a similar situation are treated differently; b) the difference in treatment has no objective and reasonable justification, and c) when the objective is not proportionate to the measures implemented ».39 146. In the case in point, the Commission has already concluded that the victims have a right to Ivorian nationality, whether it is by origin, attribution or acquired through simplified naturalization procedures. From this point of view, they are put in a situation similar to that of other Ivorian citizens. With regard to first generation Dioulas, the Commission notes, among other things, that, access to Ivorian nationality is denied them on the basis of their « Dioula » ethnic origin and their Muslim religious persuasion. As the Commission has concluded above, the vagueness and inaccuracy of the nationality Code and the inappropriate nature of the subsequent laws ensured the adoption of policies and practices which discriminate against the Dioulas. The Complainant has amply proved that persons of the Dioula ethnic group or persons perceived as such have been refused the nationality identity card or the certificate of nationality merely because of the « non38 39 Meldrum v. Zimbabwe Communication 294/04 (2009) AHRLR 268 (ACHPR 2009) Para. 91. Kenneth Good v. Botswana Communication 313/05 (2010) AHRLR 43 (ACHPR 2010), Para. 219. 45