Human Rights our Collective Responsibility 242. Now, the Commission considers it pertinent to consider two issues along with the tests of unequal treatments and unequal protection, namely, (i) whether the victims did not receive the same treatment as other male and female married detainees who were arrested in the same events; and (ii) whether the victims did not receive the same treatment accorded to other individuals being tried by a civilian court. 243. Regarding the first test, the complainants' averred being subjected to verbal and physical sexual violence in detention as affirmed in the analysis of Articles 2 and 18 above, also violates Article 3. 244. While as to the second test, the complainants submitted that they did not receive the same treatment accorded to other individuals being tried by a civilian court. They submitted further that if they had been subjected to the same abuses by an individual who was not a member of the military, they would have had access to a legal system by the ordinary courts, which apply the law and procedure that guarantee more rights, including the right to request an appropriate remedy, to join the case as a civil party, to appeal conviction or acquittal, and to have the case heard before an independent and impartial court. Because the alleged perpetrator happened to be a member of the military, the Complainants were forced to seek a remedy through a military justice system which lack impartiality and independence and were therefore deprived of their right to equal protection of the law.202 245. Considering this submission, the Commission echoes its position in The Egtjptian Initiative for Personal Rights & INTERIGHTS vs Egypt (cited above), (that equality before the law also entails equality in the administration of justice) and the findings in violation of article 26 (above), in particular, the aspect associated with the use of Military Justice System with active military officers, is holding that all individuals should have been subject to the same criminal and investigative procedures in the same manner by law enforcement and the courts. The failure by the state to ensure this falls short of the test, and it is equally a violation of Article 3(2) of the Charter. 246. In the upshot, the Commission agrees that the Respondent state has violated the right to equal protection of the law under Article 3(2). Violation of Article 9(2): Right to Freedom of Expression and Opin ion; and Article 11: The Right to Freedom of Assembly 202 See, Paragraph 203 of the Complainant Submission on Merit 571 P J g C Afncant Union The African Commission !i https:fachpr.all.m1l0 (I D