90. The Commission acknowledges the landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Uganda in Attorney General v. Susan Kigula and 417 Others37 where it held that to execute a person after a delay of three (3) years in conditions that were 'not acceptable by Ugandan standards' would amount to cruel, inhumane punishment. 91. In the instance case it is not evident from the facts summarized above that as provided by the Complainants that Mr. Ping has been on death row for a prolonged period. The facts are as follows. The crimes leading to the death sentence in 2002 were committed on 24 December 2001. The Appeal process ended sometime on 26 January 2006 and the clemency process endedon the 31 March 2006, which according to the Complainants was a day before the execution of Mr. Ping. There is no indication or evidence from the Complainants that Mr Ping was liable for execution before the process had been concluded and especially the appeal process. In this regard, the Commission finds that Article 5 of the African Charter has not been violated by the Respondent State. 92. On the secrecy of the execution and refusal to hand over body for burial, the Commission notes that the lack of transparency concerning the refusal of petition of mercy and the serving of an execution warrant, combined with the denial of access to his lawyer and family during the intervening period between the serving of the warrant and the execution (in secret) constitutes a potential violation of Article 5 of the Charter. 93. The Commission holds the view that prisoners on death row must be promptly informed and be given adequate notice of their execution. The mere fact that a particular procedure has been stipulated in the rules is not enough to justify it, but rather, that procedure has to pass the further test of being fair, just and reasonable. In the present case, even the procedure set out in the State Parties own laws regarding the procedure for executing death row prisoners and established through its own practice was ignored. The Commission maintains that despite the outcome of the clemency procedure, the victim ought to be informed in advance of an impending execution. 94. The Respondent State, on its part, missed the opportunity to challenge the allegation that no reasonable notice or any notice at all was given of the date and time of execution of the victim. In that regard, this Commission has in many of its decisions 38 held that facts uncontested by the Respondent State shall be considered as established. In view of the foregoing, the Commission will therefore hold this fact as established. 95. In Communication 240/01 Interights et al. (on behalf of Bosch) v. Botswana39 , observed that a justice system must have a human face in matters of execution of death sentences by affording a condemned person an opportunity to arrange his affairs, to be visited by members of his intimate family before he dies, and to receive spiritual advice and comfort to enable him to compose himself, as best as he can, to face his ultimate ordeal. 96. In that regard, the Commission holds that the failure by the prison authorities of the Respondent State to inform the family and the lawyers of Mr Ping, of the date, the hour, the place of the execution as well as the exact place of the burial, violates article 5 of the African Charter, and by their conduct, have failed to respect the human dignity of both the family and the prisoner, which further violates Article 5. Alleged Violation of Article 1 97.Article 1 of the African Charter requires States Parties to the African Charter to recognize the rights guaranteed therein and to adopt legislative and other measures to give effect to these rights, duties and freedoms. The Commission had decided in several Communications that Article 1 of the African Charter proclaims a fundamental principle that not only should the States Parties recognize the rights, duties and freedoms enshrined in the Charter, they also commit themselves to respect them and to take measures to give effect to them. In other words, if a State Party fails to ensure respect of the rights contained in the African Charter, this constitutes a violation of the African Charter. The Commission held in many cases that a violation of any of the provisions of the Charter automatically means a violation of Article 1.40 In this regard and having found that the Respondent State violated Article 5 of the African Charter, for hanging as 13