127. The Complainants have not made any specific submissions to substantiate the alleged violation of the provisions of the above cited Article. The Respondent State contends that the facts of the case do not sustain any claim that Article 13 has been violated. The Respondent State avers that the Complainants were not prevented from participating in the Government of their country, or denied equal access to the public service or access to public property or services. 128. The content of Article 13 has been established in the Commission's jurisprudence in a number of Communications - Modise v Botswana,27 Dawda Jawara v Gambia,28 Constitutional Rights Project v Nigeria29 and Legal Resources Foundation v Zambia.30 General Comment No 25 of the Human Rights Committee also elaborates on the content of this right.31 In the above cited jurisprudence and General Comment, it has been established that this right entails the right of citizens to directly or indirectly take part in the conduct of public affairs through electoral processes and have access to public services and property without discrimination of any kind. The Commission considers that the disparities that ensued from the privatization process cannot be said to have deprived the Complainants from enjoying the rights guaranteed under Article 13. 129. It has not been shown that the Complainants were in any way restricted from participating in the Government of their country or denied equal access to public services or property. The Commission therefore considers that the facts of the case cannot sustain a violation of Article 13 of the Charter. Alleged Violation of Article 15 130. Article 15 of the Charter protects the right of individuals to work under equitable and satisfactory conditions and to equal pay for equal work. 131. As is the case with the preceding provisions, the Complainants have not substantiated on how the conduct of the Respondent State violated this right. The Respondent State denies that the Complainants right to work under equitable conditions has been violated. 132. The Commission has considered alleged violation of the right to work under equitable conditions in Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights & Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe v Zimbabwe 32 , Institute for Human Rights and Development (on behalf of Esmaila Connateh and 13 others) v Angola33 and Annette Pagnoule (on behalf of A. Mazou) v Cameroon.34 133. In the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice case of Etim Moses v Gambia, the Court pronounced on the provision of Article 15 of the Charter as follow:35 ''... 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. ...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.'' 134. It has already been shown in the analysis of Article 2 above that the differentiation that occurred between beneficiaries of the first and second privatization schemes did not amount to discrimination and was based on objective and rational criteria, aimed at achieving a legitimate objective. The issue of equitable working conditions and equal pay for equal work does not therefore arise and the Commission accordingly considers that the rights of the Complainants under Article 15 of the Charter have not been violated. 135. From all the above, the Commission finds that the rights of the Complainants under Articles 2, 3, 13 and 15 of the Charter have not been violated and consequently dismisses the Communication. Done in Banjul, the Gambia at the 53rd Ordinary Session 9 - 23 April 2013 1 The Republic of South Africa ratified the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on July 9, 1996 and consequently became a State Party to the African Charter in October 1996 2 "Actuarial share of the fund" was defined for purposes of the second privatisation scheme as "the value of each member's share of the pension fund or superannuation fund and stabilization account as at March 1992". 3 African Commission's decision in Communication 48/90, 50/90, 52/90, 89/90 4 Human Rights Committee decision in Communication 196/1985 5 Communications 69/92 and 1/88 6 Communication 315/06 14