The Court's Analysis Issue 1: Has the Applicant been exploited economically by the Defendants? 23. Article 5 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights provides: "Every individual shall have the right to the respect of the dignity inherent in a human being and to the recognition of his legal status. All forms of exploitation and degradation of man particularly slavery, slave trade, torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and treatment shall be prohibited". One derives from this provision, the following concepts: human dignity; legal status; slavery; slave trade; physical or psychological torture; cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. 24. In basing his Application on the concept of economic exploitation, the Applicant does not demonstrate in what sense his human dignity has been damaged. The Court does not see how he has lost his legal status, and much less can the Court find any elements of torture whatever. Indeed, as a general rule, and in labour law, we talk of economic exploitation "when an individual, who is normally engaged on a remunerated work, is not remunerated at all, or if he is, the remuneration he receives is below the real value of the work done" (Definition taken from Le Nouveau Petit Robert, 2008 edition; See page 984). 25. Do the facts in the instant Case agree with this definition? The work in question, done by the Applicant and to the benefit of the Defendants, from February 2004 to January 2005, was indeed remunerated, but only in a currency different from that for the same work done as before, certainly to the benefit of the same Defendants, which was hitherto remunerated by the Commonwealth. The fundamental question here is why the remuneration changed whereas the beneficiaries of the work done remained the same. It is simply because the relationship for executing the same job changed while, indeed, the Defendants, in being the beneficiaries of the work done, were not the direct debtors of the contract with the , Commonwealth. They are the debtors for the case in contention, in this case, the fact that they offered the payment in a currency different from that of the Commonwealth, does not in itself, cause any damage to the dignity of the Applicant, nor does it deny him of his legal status. Neither does the payment proposed in Dalasis involve any elements of torture or cruel, degrading treatment. Both parties honestly believed the Commonwealth would accept to pay, but that did not materialise. 26. Finally, the Court recalls that the Applicant accepted to work, even securing a second contract with the Commonwealth, fully aware that the first contract had expired. He thus worked for one year without being paid, and when he considered that the time lapse was sufficient, he requested for his salaries. The Defendants offered to pay him his salary according to the same terms of payment as the Lecturers of his rank. The Court, on this particular point therefore, rejects the claim of economic exploitation as not sufficiently proved. Issue 2: Have the Applicant's rights to equal work for equal salary been violated? 27. In the terms of Article 15 of the African Charter on Peoples' Rights, "Every individual shall have the right to work under equitable and satisfactory conditions, and shall receive equal pay for equal work." In labour law, the concept of equal work for equal salary implies that two or several persons who carry out the same job occupy the same position in an organisation must earn the same remuneration and have the same prospects for promotion, except where the employer justifies a difference in treatment by objective factors not related to any form of discrimination. We hold that the objective of the principle of equal work for equal salary is to prohibit every form of discrimination between individuals who find themselves under the same condition. 5