law and human rights, including international instruments in interpreting Charter Rights, the African Commission should not read Article 5 of the African Charter as prohibitive of the death penalty. 141. It is submitted by the Respondent State that, because the African Charter and other international instruments recognizes the death penalty as a form of punishment, its application cannot amount to inhuman or degrading treatment the law. 142. AC HP R prohibited by Article 5 of the African Charter if it is administered according to It is also argued by the Respondent State that, the Communication does not reveal facts of any inhuman conditions or treatment whilst the victim was in prison custody. It submits that even if fear, despair and mental anguish are the inevitable concomitants of the sentence of death, the Complainants have not demonstrated that in all circumstances of the case, the delay since the passing of the death penalty sentence on the victim goes beyond what is constitutionally permissible. In referring the African Commission to Supreme Court decision in Zimbabwe42 it is further argued by the Respondent State that an element of delay between the lawful imposition of a sentence of death and the exhaustion of available remedies is inherent in the review of the sentence; thus, even prolonged periods of detention under a severe custodial regime on death row cannot generally be considered to constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment if the convicted person is merely availing himself of appellate remedies. Thus, it is contended that Article 5 of the African Charter has not been violated in any way. On the Alleged Violation of Articles 7 (Right to Fair Trial) 42 Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace in Zimbabwe v Attorney General, Zimbabwe & Ors, 1993 (4) SA 239 (ZS) 37