b. (d) that law enforcement organs at all levels are equipped to effectively interpret and enforce gender equality rights; c. (e) that women are represented equally in the judiciary and law enforcement organs; d. (fJ reform of existing discriminatory laws and practices in order to promote and protect the rights of women." 158. The Commission in Zimbabwe Lawyers for human Rights and the Institute for Human Rights and Development (on behalf of Andrew Barclay Meldrum) v Republic of Zimbabwe has interpreted Article 3(1) as follows: The right to equality before the law means that individuals legally within the jurisdiction of a State should expect to be treated fairly and justly within the legal system and be assured, of equal treatment before the law and equal enjoyment of the rights available to all other citizens. Its ineaning is the right to have the same procedures and principles applied under the same ,conditions. The principle that all persons are equal before the law means that existing laws must be applied in the same manner to those .subject to them. The right to equality before the law does not refer to the content of legislation, but rather exclusively to its enforcement. It means that judges -and administration officials may not act arbitrarily in enforcing laws. 53 159. In Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights and the Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa v. Republic of Zimbabwe, the Commission interpreting Article 3(2) held 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 particular applies to equal treatment as an element of fundamental fairness. "54 160. Having regard to its findings on Articles 2 and 18(3) of the Charter, as well as 2 of the Maputo Protocol, the Commission finds that the relevant laws on Chieftaincy as well as the constitutional right to freedom from discrimination are applied differently between man and women and accordingly treat them differently with no justification. 161. The Commission also associates with the submission of the Complainants that although given an opportunity on two separate occasions, both the Constitutional Court and the Lesotho Appeal Court in Lesotho have failed to reform section 10 of the Chieftainship Act in such a way that it~E9 longer discriminatory and can protect and promote the rights of w-:@en·;i,a~ ,//.,,, lcRfT4r,, ""·v 0 required under Article 8(f) of the Maputo Protocol. s '"I,- ~ //(-/F 53 Communication 294/2004, para 96 54 Communication 29 3/04, para 100 ,;j ~,.--.); -,·:\ \ \. o~';, \·, J; O,i, <;,r, ~ 0 <:,Q 4~~.p!J1~llJ-.; , ' •lt;, f :JJ ~- "' A'U-U~ <,,,,_, ,J?'- ~~ 1