the observed established rights with regard to the violation of the provisions of Article 5 of the Charter. The Commission concludes that there is ample evidence that such unjustifiable discrimination so established violates the provisions of Article 2 of the Charter. 152. The Complainant also alleges that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Charter which also prescribes equality before the law and equal protection of the law. The Commission notes that equality before the law derives from a substantial legal prerogative, while equal protection of the law also goes with the practical enjoyment of this substantial prerogative. Thus, through equality before the law, the Charter recognizes and confers upon the human person, the right to, in much the same way as all other persons, belong to the big family of the human person. The Inter-American Human Rights Commission properly states this meaning of equality before the law in Barberia v. Chile as follows: The notion of equality derives directly from the unity of the human family and is linked to the essential dignity of the individual. This principle cannot be reconciled with the notion that a particular group of individuals has the right to special treatment as a result of their perceived superiority. It is also irreconcilable with this notion of categorizing a group as being inferior and to treat it with hostility or even to discriminate against it in the enjoyment of the rights accorded other groups which are not categorized as such. It is forbidden to subject human persons to different forms of treatment which are inconsistent with their unique and fellowfeeling character.42 153. Under Articles 3(1) of the Charter, equality before the law, therefore, refers to equality in law or legal equality inherent to any individual subject of law as a result of his human nature and which places him on equal legal terms with other human persons. On the other hand, equal protection of the law provided for by Article 3(2) refers more particularly to the guarantees introduced in order to give substance to the subjective law deriving from equality before the law or in law. In Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights and one Other v. Zimbabwe, the Commission considers legal protection of the law as « the right of every individual to equal access to justice and to be 42 Margarita Cecilia Barbería Miranda v. Chile Case 12.469 Inter-American Human Rights Commission (2010) para 34. The Commission then adopted Legal Opinion OC-4/84 of 19 January, 1984 given by the Inter-American Human Rights Court on the Proposed Amendments to the Naturalization Provisions of the Constitution of Costa Rica, Series A No. 4, para 55. Translation by the Commission. 48