14 34. Such proof has, however, not been forthcoming from the Respondent State. That is what the Court ought to have expressed in a clearer manner particularly with regard to the right to freely participate in the government of the country. Paragraphs I 09 in fine, Ill, I 13 and 1 14 of the Judgment indeed s uggest that the ban-ing of independent candidates from certain elections and the correlative obligation to belong to a political party are in "themselves" violations of Articles I 0 and 13 ( 1) of the Charter, whether or not such limi tations arc reasonable. The reasoning of the Court would had been clearer if its various sequences and the corresponding paragraphs of the Judgment were positioned in a more coherent manner so to show that it is the fact that the limitation to the rights concerned were unreasonable that led the Court to the conclusion that the said rights had been violated. Paragraph 109, in particular, is not at its right place in the reasoning of the Court (it should be located upstream) and Paragraph 108, for its part, addresses issues which arc extraneous to the instant case. 35. Having found that Articles l 0 and 13 (1) of the Charter had been violated, the Court could only have concluded that there was violation of the principles of non-discrimination and of the equal protection of the law as enshrined in Articles 2 and 3 (2), respectively. 36. The principle of non-discrimination, on one hand, and the principles of equality before the law and of equal protection of the law, on the other, are in close relationship. They arc so to say the two sides of the same coin, the first principle being the corollary of the second ones. Their main difference under the African Charter lies in their respective scope.