Communication 431/12 – Thomas Kwoyelo v. Uganda of non-discrimination and equal treatment if: ‘a) equal cases are treated in a different manner; b) a difference in treatment does not have an objective and reasonable justification; and c) if there is no proportionality between the aim sought and the means employed’.44 163. Differential treatment, therefore, entails the existence of a ‘comparator’ or other similar situations to compare with. 164. If the existence of a difference in treatment is proven then the next step is to establish whether the treatment was justified or whether there is a reasonable explanation and/or justification. 165. In the instant case, the bone of contention is the denial of amnesty to the Victim by the Respondent State. According to the Complainant, even though the Victim was declared eligible for amnesty by the Amnesty Commission in accordance with the Amnesty Act of 2000, which was subsequently upheld by the Constitutional Court and the Court of Appeal and the High Court of Uganda, the DPP impeded the issuance of the Amnesty Certificate to the Victim by instituting criminal charges. 166. The Complainant argues that the granting of over 24,000 amnesty applications before and 274 more after the Victim’s application was rejected including to persons who were holding higher command positions shows that he was selectively treated without any objective or reasonable explanation. 167. The Respondent State on the other hand defends its actions by claiming that the Complainant has failed to prove that the circumstances of the granting of amnesty to members of various rebel groups who renounced rebellion was similar ACHPR, Communication 313/05 – Kenneth Good v. Botswana, (2010) para. 219. See also ACHPR, Communication 335/06 - Dabalorivhuwa Patriotic Front v the Republic of South Africa, (2013), para. 113. 44 44 62nd Ordinary Session, 25 April – 9 July 2018