ACHPR r· African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights : ' ; �CHP�. \ ·· Human Rights our Collee;tive Responsibility ·cnu:rn � same criminal and investigative procedures in the same manner by law enforcement and the courts'. 24 121. The Commission has severally explained that article 3 is a complement to article 2 aimed at protecting people from discrimination in legal proceedings. It has held in Communication 253/02 Antonie Bissangou v Congo that 'Article 3 of the African Charter contains a general guarantee of equality which supplements the ban on discrimination provided for in Article 2'. 25 122. Likewise, in Communication 286/2.004, Dino Noca v DRC, drawing inspiration from the case of Brown v Board of Education of Topeka according to which "equal protection by law refers to the right ofeveryone to have equal access to courts ofjustice and to be treated the same way by the courts, both for procedures and for the essence of the law. It is akin to the right to due process oflaw, but applies in particular to equal treatment as an element offundamental equih/11 the Commission found that the right to defence and principle of right to equality before the law were violated, partly because the complainant was unable to present its defence following the rejection of a request for resumption of proceedings by the aggrieved party. 26 123. In the present communication( the Complainant's request for leave to appeal to the JCPC in order to be allowed to litigate in person was rejected by the JCPC which opined that his applications " do not raise an arguable point of law of general public importance." 27 The question before this Commission is whether the refusal by the Supreme Court and the JCPC respectively, to grant leave for appeal to the Complainant to present his case in person without the services of an attorney violated his rights under the Charter. 124. It also appears that after the decision of the JCPC of 13 December 2011, the Complainant made several further unsuccessful attempts before domestic courts for the legal position adopted in the 1 July 2011 ruling to be reversed so that he could be allowed to act in person in his cases. The said attempts include the institution of the case D Hurnam v The State ofMauritius & KP Matadeen, where the 24 Communication 323/06, Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights & INTERIGHTS v Egypt, 16 December 2011, para 177. 25 Communication 253/02 Antonie Bissangou v Congo, 29 November 2006, para 70. 26 Communication 286/2004, Dino Noca v Democratic Republic of the Congo, 22 203; also affirmed in Communication 293/ 4 Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights and Development in Africa v. Zimbabwe, para. 126. 27 Devendranath Hurnam v Director of Public Prosecutions & Others, JCPC, 13 De Page 28 of 45 African Commission 31 Bijilo Anne Phone: (220) Email: 1�@��;,ri . rg https:/achpr.au.int/0 0 D