58 Chekera-Radu/Women’s land and property rights ‘accorded to all persons in analogous situations in an equal manner and measure.’74 Grounding its enquiry in the prohibition on discrimination, the Commission focused itself to an enquiry on direct discrimination which like formal equality relies on the use of a comparator as opposed to indirect discrimination. An indirect discrimination enquiry would have enquired into whether a law, policy or action that is seemingly neutral results in disproportionate impact on a particular group. The Centre for Minority Rights Development and Minority Rights Group (on behalf of Endorois Welfare Council) v Kenya did not deal with violations of the equality provisions of the Charter. However, it is one of the cases that displays aspects of a substantive approach to equality through the view it took on special measures. In response to state allegations that ‘special treatment in favour of the Endorois might be perceived as being discriminatory,’ the Commission established that in certain cases ‘positive discrimination or affirmative action’ is not discriminatory when employed for the purposes of helping to redress imbalance.75 The African Court is a relatively recent addition to the bodies of the African human rights system established ’to complement and reinforce the functions of the African Commission.’76 As a result of having in existence for a short period of time the Court has not had much of an opportunity to deal with cases that develop interpretation of the equality provisions. While the jurisprudence of the African human rights system that shows a recognition of substantive equality has been limited it is worth mentioning that the Charter in articles 60 and 61 allows the Commission to be guided by international law and there have been communications in which the Commission has made reference to the jurisprudence of other bodies. In Purohit, the African Commission based on the similarities between article 13(1) of the African Charter and article 25 of the ICCPR endorsed the interpretation afforded to article 25 by the Human Rights Committee.77 While General Comment on article 25 does not relate explicitly to substantive equality, the value of the approach leaves room for the Commission to be inspired to develop its own jurisprudence on the basis of some of the progressive norms and standards developed by the other treaty bodies. On this basis it is hoped that in future when the treaty bodies are occasioned to deal with communications relating to women’s property rights they will do so taking into account progressive developments that have taken place in other jurisdictions when using interdependence of rights. 74 Equality Now and Ethiopian Women Lawyers Association (EWLA) v Federal Republic of Ethiopia para 142. 75 Centre for Minority Rights Development and Minority Rights Group (on behalf of Endorois Welfare Council) v Kenya (2009) AHRLR 75 (ACHPR 2009) para 196. 76 http://www.african-court.org/en/ 77 Purohit and Moore v the Gambia (2003) AHRLR 96 (ACHPR 2003).