application at the same time as issuing a warrant of execution prevents the prisoner from enjoying the protection of the Commission. The Respondent State’s Submissions on the Merits 61. The Respondent State has failed to respond to the Commission’s request for its submissions on the Merits of the Communication, within the stipulated time, despite several reminders. 62. In accordance with Rules 119(4) and 120 of the previous Rules of Procedure, the Commission will proceed and decide the matter on the Merits. Decision of the Commission on the Merits 63. The Commission reiterates from the onset that it did not receive submissions from the Respondent State on Merits and as such the following analysis relies principally on the submissions of the Complainants as well as the jurisprudence of the Commission. Alleged Violation of Article 4 64. One of the questions before the Commission is whether the death penalty as such – however executed – is compatible with the Charter. In dealing with this question, the Commission has in the past established in its decisions that the imposition of a sentence of death after an unfair trial – or a trial that does not meet the requirements of fairness set out in Article 7 of the Charter - is necessarily a violation of Article 4 of the Charter. Thus in Forum of Conscience v Sierra Leone23 the Commission ruled that: “The right to life is the fulcrum of all other rights. It is the fountain through which all other rights flow, and any violation of this right without due process amounts to arbitrary deprivation of law. Having found above that the trial of the 24 soldiers constituted a breach of due process of law as guaranteed under Article 7(1)(a) of the Charter, the Commission Communication 223/98 20 | P a g e 23