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. 29 | P a g e