Judgment No CCZ 4/14 9 Const. Application No SC 207/11 origin, political opinions, colour, creed, sex, gender, marital status or physical disability are prejudiced— (a) by being subjected to a condition, restriction or disability to which other persons of another such description are not made subject; or (b) by the according to persons of another such description of a privilege or advantage which is not accorded to persons of the first-mentioned description; and the imposition of that condition, restriction or disability or the according of that privilege or advantage is wholly or mainly attributable to the description by race, tribe, place of origin, political opinions, colour, creed, sex, gender, marital status or physical disability of the persons concerned.” The applicants allege that they were treated in a discriminatory manner in that firstly, they were subjected to sanitary conditions, restrictions or disabilities that peculiarly isolate them and amount to inhuman and degrading treatment. In that connection it was submitted that:‘treatment which results in some partiality or inequality of treatment is the popular meaning of the word ‘discrimination’ and is the meaning which should be adopted in this case for ‘It is the duty of the court to hold the scales evenly between different classes of the community and to declare invalid practice, which...results in partial and unequal treatment to a substantial degree between different sectors of the community.” Secondly, they were made to remove their brassieres which were not only inhuman and degrading but discriminatory. I will revert later in this judgment to the question of inhuman and degrading treatment. THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE SANITARY PROVISIONS FOR MENSTRUATING WOMEN The applicants were alive to the fact that on them rests the onus of establishing that they were treated in a discriminatory manner. Mr Uriri submitted that the discharge of the onus which lay on the applicants had been facilitated by the admission by the second