personal belongings or entrust same with friends and relatives for safe keeping, let alone be able to seize the appropriate authorities to challenge the manner of their detention, and subsequent expulsion. 40. Time and again, in communication 71/1992 - Recontre Africaine pour la Defense des Droits de l'Homme/Republic of Zambia, the African Commission held that the mass expulsions, particularly following arrest and subsequent detentions, deny victims the opportunity to establish the legality of these actions in the courts. In the present case, there is no indication as to whether the deportees were accorded the opportunity to contact their families, much less attorneys, thereby making the requirement of exhausting local remedies impracticable. 41. It is not a contested fact that the Complainants are no longer in Angola the territory where the action arose, and that they are unable to return thereto to seek redress. For purposes of redress. This, in accordance with the Commission’s decisions in communications 87/1993 Civil Liberties Organisation / Federal Republic of Nigeria and 101/1993 Civil Liberties Organisation (in respect of the Nigerian Bar Association) / Federal Republic of Nigeria and 215/1998 Rights International / Federal Republic of Nigeria, constitute constructive exhaustion of domestic remedies per the jurisprudence of the African Commission, and the latter could only but exempt the Complainant from this particular requirement. In communication , the Commission arrived at a similar decision, holding that, it would be impractical to require the Complainants to return to Angola for purposes of seeking redress in the national courts. 42. For the above reasons, the African Commission declares this communication admissible. Decision on the Merits 43. The Complainant prays the African Commission to find the Respondent State in violation of Articles 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7(1)(a),12(4), 12(5), 14 and 15 of the African Charter as a result of the alleged systematic arrest, detention and subsequent deportation of thousands of foreigners from Angolan territory, including at least 205 Gambian nationals. 44. The African Commission will examine the allegations of the Complainant under each of the provisions of the African Charter alleged to have been violated by the Respondent State. Alleged violation of Article 3(2) 45. The Complainant alleges that the mass arrest, detention and expulsion of the Gambians from Angola violated their right to equal protection of the law. Equal protection of the law under Article 3(2) relates to the right of all persons to have the same access to the law and courts and to be treated equally by the law and courts both in procedures and in the substance of the law. It is akin to the right to due process of the law, but in particular, applies to equal treatment as an element of fundamental fairness. 46. In terms of Article 60 of the Charter, this Commission can also be inspired in this regard by the 1 famous case of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka in which the Chief Justice of the United State of America, Earl Warren argued that ‘equal protection of the law refers to ‘the right of all persons to have the same access to the law and courts and to be treated equally by the law and courts, both in procedures and in the substance of the law. It is akin to the right to due process of law, but in 2 particular applies to equal treatment as an element of fundamental fairness’. 47. In order for a Complainant to establish a successful claim under Article 3(2) of the Charter therefore, it must show that, the Respondent State had not given the victims the same treatment it accorded to the others. Or that, the Respondent State had accorded favourable treatment to others in the same position as the victims. 48. In the present Communication, the Commission has examined the evidence submitted by the Complainant and is of the view that it (the Complainant) has not demonstrated the extent to which the victims in the present communication were treated differently from the other nationals arrested and detained under the same conditions. The Commission thus does not find the Respondent State to have violated Article 3(2) of the African Charter.