torture and ill-treatment. They submit that the judgment fails to mention, still less to address, the allegations of ill-treatment; and that the authorities have continuously failed to take any steps to investigate the allegations of illtreatment or the questions raised by the FMA reports. 119. The Complainants also contend that the carrying out of a death sentence using a particular method of execution may amount to cruel inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment if the suffering caused in execution of the sentence is excessive and goes beyond that strictly necessary. They further argue that where a death sentence has been imposed “it must be carried out in such a way as to cause the least possible physical and mental suffering.”31 This approach they submit was tested and applied in the case of Ng v. Canada where it was found that the particular method of gas asphyxiation fell foul of it.32 120. The Complainants submit that in the present case, the victims have been sentenced to death by hanging. Hanging, they contend, is a notoriously slow and painful means of execution. If carried out without appropriate attention to the weight of the person condemned, hanging can result either in slow and painful strangulation, because the neck is not immediately broken by the drop, or, at the other extreme, in the separation of the head from the body. The risk of either possibility is not compatible with respect for the inherent dignity of the individual and the duty to minimize unnecessary suffering. Alleged Violation of Articles 7(1) and 26 (Right to Fair Trial and Independent Judiciary) 121. The Complainants argue that the victims right to a fair trial was violated in that; 31 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 20, para. 6. 32 Ng v. Canada (Comm. No 469/1991), Human Rights Committee, 7 January 1994, UN doc. CCPR/C/49/D/469/1991, para. 16.2 and 16.4. 31