tortured by people who were well known; he was kept for a period of time with individuals who were known and he died in their hands. Therefore, there was nothing complex in that case, unlike that of Norbert Zongo”. 165. In its 21 June 2013 Ruling, the Court declared itself competent to hear the allegations of violation of the right to equal protection of the law and equality before the law “provided these allegations were directly linked to the allegation of violation of the right to have one’s cause heard by competent national Courts”. 166. All in all, the Applicants contend that by treating the case of Zongo and others far less expeditiously than other cases particularly that of David Ouédraogo, the Respondent had violated the right to equality of individuals before the law in Burkina Faso. It was in response to that contention that the Respondent indicated that the two cases could not be compared in terms of the complexity of the investigations. 167. The Court is of the opinion that the principle of equality before the law, implicit in the principle of equal protection of the law and equality before the law, does not necessarily mean that all cases will have to be disposed of within the same length of time by judicial institutions. The duration of the treatment of a matter could indeed depend on the specific circumstances of each maitier, particularly its relative complexity. 168. In the instant case, the Court notes that in view of the elements contained in the case file, the case of Zongo and others and that of the David Ouédraogo were not of the same complexity and could not have been disposed of within the same length of time. 169. Consequently, as far as the treatment of the Zongo and others case is concerned, the Respondent has not violated the right of Applicants to equality before the law as set forth in article 3 of the Charter. 170. In substance, Article 14 (1) of the ICCPR guarantees in the same manner as article 3 of the Charter the right to equality, especially before Courts and tribunals. The Court having ruled on the alleged violation in relation to article 3 of the Charter, does not deem it necessary to make a ruling on the same allegation in relation to article 14 (1) of the 46 ~ we