and violates article 5 of the African Charter. The European Court in Soering vs. UK35, held that “[h]aving regard to the very long period of time spent on death row in such extreme conditions, with the ever present and mounting anguish of awaiting execution of the death penalty, and to the personal circumstances of the applicant....... would expose him to a real risk of treatment going beyond the threshold set by Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights which is the corresponding article to Article 5 of the African Charter”. The Court also found that “(…) all of the victims in the present case live under the constant threat that they may be taken to be hanged at any moment. According to the report submitted by the expert Gaietry Pargass, the procedures leading up to the death by hanging of those convicted of murder terrorizes and depresses the prisoners; others cannot sleep due to nightmares, much less eat”. 89. Similarly in Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. UK36, the Court held that “the death penalty which involved the deliberate and premeditated destruction of a human being by the State authorities causing physical pain and intense psychological suffering as a result of the foreknowledge of death, could be considered inhumane and degrading and, as such, contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights”. 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”. 35 Soering v. the United Kingdom (application no. 14038/88) 36 Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v the United Kingdom (application no. 61498/08) Attorney General v. Susan Kigula and 417 Others (Constitutional Appeal No. 3 of 2006) [2009] UGSC 6 (21 January 2009). 37 28 | P a g e