125. It is submitted by Complainants that the victim had been under the fear of the death penalty for over a decade since he was first arrested and that this prolonged delay constitutes cruel, unusual or degrading punishment or treatment for the reason that he lived for an unconscionable amount of time awaiting the potential imposition of a death sentence, rendering the victim‟s AC HP R execution a violation of Article 5 of the African Charter. Alleged Violation of Articles 7 (Right to Fair Trial) 126. The Complainants argue that the death penalty cannot be imposed for attempted murder in the Respondent State, and that even if the culprit with premeditated intent, wished to kill his victim, but the victim was saved by the skills of brilliant doctors, the Court has no power to sentence the culprit to death in terms of the criminal code of the Respondent State. In further emphasizing that during Kobedi‟s trial, crucial expert medical evidence was adduced revealing gross medical negligence towards Sgt. Goepamang during his time in hospital and that were it not for gross medical negligence Sgt. Goepamang, would not have died, the Complainants submit that the lawyer who initially represented Mr. Kobedi, not only failed to consider the above aspects, but that he did not also have access to the medical records of the deceased and lacked the resources to engage forensic experts. 127. The Complainants submit that the above situation could only be made possible by one of two reasons; that counsel dealing with the matter at that initial stage did not have the necessary skills and competence required in defending a death penalty case; or the evidence could not be expected to have been acquired by the lawyer at that stage and therefore amounts to new evidence discovered after the appeal. They further argue that this lack of competence on the part of 32