Respondent State’s Submissions on the Merits 131. The Respondent State submits as a preliminary issue, that the procedure adopted by the African Commission in dealing with the post-admissibility processes in this Communication contravenes Rule 119(2) (3) of the African Commission. It contends that by virtue of Rule 119 (2), once the African Commission decides on the Admissibility of a Communication, the Respondent AC HP R State shall file its submissions without any further reference to the Complainants and the Complainants should only be allowed to reply to the State‟s submission in terms of Rule 119 (3). 132. It is further contended by the Respondent State that by virtue of the above, the Complainants are required to disclose the full particulars of their Complaint at the very initial stage. In submitting that the African Commission erred when it simultaneously asked both the Complainants and the Respondent State, to make their submissions on the Merits, the Respondent State prays the African Commission to purge and expunge from its records any submissions made by the Complainants in this regard. 133. With regards to the substantive matter, the Respondent State argues that the compulsory requirement under Botswana law for the Courts to impose the death penalty for murder, where no extenuating circumstances are shown; the adoption of the doctrine of “functus officio” by the Court of Appeal of the Respondent State with regards to the trial of Kobedi and the use of hanging as a method of execution of Kobedi does not in anyway contravene Articles 2,3,4,5 and 7 of the African Charter. On the Alleged Violation of Articles 2 and 3 (Right not to be Discriminated and Right to Equality before the law) 34