5. The Complainants also allege that despite the fact that the Prison’s Act stipulates that a minimum of 24 hour notice should be given to the Prisoner before execution, the prison authorities have in practice used ‘this requirement as a maximum requirement and proceeded to block access to the prisoner within that twenty-four (24) hour period.’ In the present case, it is alleged that the Victim’s mother and Ditshwanelo (appointed counsel for the Victim) had both been denied access to the Victim before his execution. 6. The Complainants further allege a continuous violation of the right to life in Botswana by the imposition of the death penalty in Botswana. Additionally, the manner in which the death penalty is carried out by hanging also constitutes cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. Lastly, the secrecy of executions and the lack of proper notification before executions severely compromise the right to pursue all avenues of justice on behalf of a prisoner. 7. The Complainants aver that there are no local remedies which can be pursued in Botswana since the Court of Appeal has already made a ruling on the constitutionality of the death penalty in Botswana. 2 Articles alleged to have been violated 8. The Complainants allege that the Respondent State has violated Articles 1, 4 and 5 of the African Charter. The Procedure 9. The Secretariat received a Complaint from the Complainants on 31 March 2006 and acknowledged its receipt on 1 April 2006. Accompanying the Complaint In 2003, in The State vs Lehlohnonolo, the presiding Judge had ruled that Section 4 of the Botswana Constitution, permitting deprivation of life in execution of a sentence of the court, could not contravene section 7 of the Constitution, prohibiting inhumane punishment, since they both formed part of the same document. 2 2|P a g e

Select target paragraph3