154. The Complainants argue that the compulsory requirement under Botswana legislation that a Court must impose the death penalty for murder, absent only extenuating circumstance limits the factors that can be taken into consideration in respect of sentencing. They submit that the exclusion of considerations such as rehabilitation or such other factors personal to the victim violates Articles 2 and 3 of the African Charter. In this regard, they argue that the distinction between taking into account extenuating circumstances and not taking into account 155. AC HP R mitigating factors is both arbitrary and discriminative. Concerning the alleged violation of Article 2 of the African Charter, the Respondent State submits that this Article deals with the issue of discrimination, and argued that the legislation in the Respondent State did not in anyway discriminate against the victim as the death penalty would be imposed on anyone found guilty of murder without any extenuating circumstance. 156. In reply to the alleged violation of Article 3 of the African Charter, the Respondent State, while noting that this Article deals with the twin concepts of equality before the law and equal protection of the law, submitted that the victim‟s right to be treated equally before the law was not interfered with in anyway by the Respondent State throughout the trial process. 157. Concerning the allegation that the victim was not afforded equal protection of the law, the Respondent State contends that Kobedi was at all times during the trial process provided with high quality legal representation and was not treated unequally vis-à-vis any other person in a similar situation. These, argues the Respondent State shows that the allegations of the Complainants with regards to the alleged violation of Articles 2 and 3 of the African Charter are baseless. 42