. • �CHP�• • ACH PR African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights Human Rights our Collective Responsibility Complainant sought to proceed in person after the demise of his attorney, and again his request was rejected. 28 125. The Commission is of the view that the personal right to appear in court and litigate one's case in person is protected under the African Charter, and in the circumstances of the present case, where an individual's career, reputation, and the likelihood that a decision in a case will set a precedent and resonate on all present and future members of an entire profession, all litigants in person, and the general public, make the protection of this right all the more necessary. The state's intervention in this case, citing "a collateral attack" that "is contrary to public policy and amounts to an abuse of process" seems to reinforce this position. 29 . 126. Moreover, the Commission notes that, in the 1 July 2011 Ruling, the Supreme Court held the view that "the new regime introduced by the Supreme Court Rules 2000, should henceforth be applied with due rigour," without indicating the reasons why it henceforth wanted to depart from previous practice and why in any case the 1 July 2011 Ruling should not apply only 'henceforth', i.e. on future cases and not operate retrospectively. In this respect, the Complainant's submission that "the decision in D Hurnam v DPP & Others to the effect that the new regime introduced by the Supreme Court Rules 2000 should henceforth be applied with rigour can only mean to apply subsequent to the said judgment" is upheld. 127. The rights to equality before the law and to equal protection of the law entail that parties to legal proceedings must be given equal opportunity to prepare and present their case. They must be able to defend their case in court on an equal footing. If the State does not afford the Complainant the same treatment it accorded to the other party, or if the State accord favourable treatment to others in the same position as the Complainant, that would be unfair treatment in violation of article 3(2). 128. That position was explicitly held in Communication 294/04, Zimbabwe Lawyersfor Human Rights and Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa (on behalf of Andrew Barclay Meldrum) v Zimbabwe, where the Commission stated that the-�lte:::::::... ()N ""M.i 4 must ensure that any parties to a dispute are 'placed on equal footing /o!tl-y "in. 1?,::1,;·• . ,,.,. vo 1 � <{ _, o I! i 28 See paras. 21-23, 61, 74 & 80-82 above. AU-UA .j. \ Devendranath Hurnam v. Kailashing Bho/ah and Soobashsing Bholah; Privy Council Appeal No 0102 20� .5 29 ._.,.,► i�l,) Page 29 of45 ";, \·. . \', - ,\ ✓' · C "�<>,. ,Alltf-at> �-,// African Commission on Human and Peop ' gb s�""-.,: -31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo North oirs , iti=i;i;:;::� West Coast Region Gambia Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04 Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org https:/achpr.au.int/0 0 a I / 1