which the Victims were subjected in the camps, in order for the Commission to find that this was discriminatory, the Complainant would have to show that similarly placed persons were treated differently and that the difference in treatment resulted in a violation of their rights, based on their refugee, asylum seeker or migrant status, national origin or race, which does not have a reasonable justification and finally that there was no proportionality. 36 165. The first action to be assessed is the breaking up of the protest. In this case the refugees, asylum seekers and irregular migrants were treated in the same way, and there was thus no discrimination between the groups. Furthermore, since the Complainants have not given evidence as to how the State has gone about breaking up protests by Egyptian citizens, there is thus no way in which to confirm whether equal cases were treated differently and that they would have received more favourable treatment if they were Egyptian nationals. The Commission cannot find that their treatment in this regard was discriminatory on the basis of immigrant status. 166. The second action to be assessed is the detention and the conditions of detention. Under the provisions of the UN Convention in Articles 26 and 31(2), quoted above, the State was not acting outside of its power in removing the refugees, asylum-seekers and undocumented persons to the camps. This is confirmed in the decision of the Commission in Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa v Republic of Angola, in which the Commission reaffirmed that “governments have the right to regulate entry, exit and stay of foreign nationals in their territories”.36 It can thus not be said that the differentiated treatment based on refugee status in being taken to the camps instead of the protest simply being ended, amounted to discrimination, as it is specifically provided for under international law as falling within the discretion of a host State, and thus has a rational basis. 167. Furthermore, according to the facts, while the card-carrying refugees were released the following day, once their status was confirmed, asylum seekers and irregular migrants were held in detention for a longer period. This distinction in treatment does not, however, amount to discrimination, because of the principles of refugee law discussed above, which allow limitations on freedom of movement of irregular migrants and asylum seekers and provides Communication 292/04: Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa / Angola Para 79. 43