51 the Charter, which stipulates that “[e]very individual shall be entitled to equal protection of the law”. In the light of Article 2 of the Charter above quoted, the alleged discrimination might be related to a distinction based on “political or any other opinion”. To justify the difference in treatment between Tanzanians, the respondent has, as already mentioned, invoked the existence of social needs of the people of Tanzania based, inter alia, on the particular structure of the State (Union between Mainland Tanzania and Tanzania Zanzibar) and the history of the country, all requiring a gradual construction of a pluralist democracy in unity. The question then arises whether the grounds raised by the Respondent State in answer to that difference in treatment enshrined in the above mentioned constitutional amendments are pertinent, in other words reasonable, and legitimate. As the Court has already indicated, those grounds of justification cannot lend legitimacy to the restrictions introduced by the same constitutional amendments to the right to participate in the Government of one’s country, and the right not to be compelled to be part of an association (supra, paragraphs 107 – 11 and paragraphs 114 -115). It is the view of the Court that the same grounds of justification do not legitimise the restrictions to not be discriminated against and the right to equality before the law. The Court therefore concludes that there has been violation of Articles 2 and 3(2) of the Charter.