000301 its jurisdiction; within these limits, its title to exercise jurisdiction rests in its sovereignty". It follows that the issue is whether the intemal acts regarding the presidential pardon are detachable or not from the office of is an office whose legal regime belongs globally to the President. It of States. The law applicable to the exercise of presidential pardon, except arbitrary controlled by international [aw, is subject to the domestic law of States. It was up to the Applicants, not the Court, to add the elements, the nature of which varies according to the national legal systems. [t is indisputable that the control of international law on this aspect is not worthless. But the Shukrani Masegenya Mango and others case made no contribution thereto; they merely stated the arbitrariness of the Respondent State's use of the presidential pardon. intemal sovereignty l0.Acts of the executive, attached to the power, do not fall within the jurisdiction of the judicial powers normally exercised by the local judge because of the separation of powers. Louis Favoreuleproposed to submit them to constitutional power. This seems to be an illusion, since constitutional power remains dependent on the domestic law, which remains under the control of the sovereign power. Supranational law integrated into intemational law would exercise control over those acts to which would be subjected, not the presidential pardon itself, but its administration or exercise, under two conditions, however: that such acts are detachable from the exercise ofthe reserved area ofthe State, and that after validation of the conditions of admissibility, the acts are really tainted with arbitrariness. 1 As a result, even though in the Shulrani and others case the Applicants submitted that the Respondent State "automatically excludes prisoners serving long term sentences from the prerogative of mercy thereby violating Article 2 of the Charter and Article 13(1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) of the Respondent State's Constitution",2o this Court refused to grant the request, as the procedural and substantive elements are not strictly 1. associated. Ii\AN 4 NO o\\ il$ a isl Arusha, 27 September 2019 g Judge Blaise Tchikaya s :-?t. le Mauss 20 (D.), Louis Favoreu, a constitutional law missionary, fuFDC,2004, pp.46l to 463. See AfCHPR, Judgement, Shulcrani Masegenya Mcutgo nnd others v. Tsnzania, op. cit., $ 7 5