execution and the refusal by the Respondent State to hand over the body of the victim to his family for burial, constituted a cruel, inhuman and degrading form of punishment which amounts to a violation of Article 5 of the African Charter. 84. On hanging, the Commission takes cognizance of the current position of international human rights law on the execution of the death penalty which is that, where a death sentence has been imposed, it must be carried out in such a way as to cause the least possible physical and mental suffering.32 In its own jurisprudence the Commission has reiterated that executions may amount to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment if the suffering caused in execution is excessive and goes beyond that is strictly necessary.33 85. In the present case, the prisoner was executed via hanging. The issue therefore is whether hanging as a method of execution violates Article 5 of the Charter. Currently, no method of execution has been found to be acceptable under international law. This complicates the current inquiry since it seems that no method of execution is appropriate under international law. 86. In the present case, the Victim's execution was done in secrecy and therefore no specific details have been provided. Nevertheless, the Commission will rely on the following account provided by the Tanzanian High Court in order to appreciate the nature of executions by hanging as a matter of principle: The prisoner is dropped through a trapdoor, to eight and a half feet with a rope around his neck. The intention is to break his neck so that he dies quickly. The length of the drop is determined on the basis of such factors as body weight and muscularity or fatness of the prisoner's neck. If the hangman gets it wrong and the prisoner is dropped too far, the prisoner's head can be decapitated or his face can be torn away. If the drop is too short then the neck will not be broken but instead the prisoner will die of strangulation. There are many documented cases of botched hangings in various countries including Tanzania. There are a few cases in which hangings have been messed up and the prison have had to pull on the prisoner's leg to speed up his death or use hammer to hit his head. The shock to the system causes the prisoner to lose control over his bowels and he will soil himself. In short the whole process is sordid and debasing. Not only is the process generally sordid and debasing, but also it is generally brutalizing.... It is my finding that the petitioners have managed to prove on a balance of probabilities that hanging in carrying out the death penalty is a cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.34 87. The above description, to say the least, is inhuman and degrading. The above case explains a general reality that happens during hangings. The conclusion by the sitting judge that the whole process is 'sordid and debasing' and that it is 'generally brutalizing' is telling. The Commission therefore finds that in line with the description of the Tanzanian High Court about hanging as a method of execution in Africa that hanging causes excessive suffering and is not strictly necessary; therefore, it constitutes a violation of Article 5 of the African Charter. 88. On the issue of death row phenomenon raised by the Complainants, the Commission wishes to draw inspiration from the European Court judgments on whether the death penalty is cruel inhuman or degrading form of punishment and violates article 5 of the African Charter. The European Court in Soering vs. UK35 , held that [h]aving regard to the very long period of time spent on death row in such extreme conditions, with the ever present and mounting anguish of awaiting execution of the death penalty, and to the personal circumstances of the applicant....... would expose him to a real risk of treatment going beyond the threshold set by Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights which is the corresponding article to Article 5 of the African Charter. The Court also found that (...) all of the victims in the present case live under the constant threat that they may be taken to be hanged at any moment. According to the report submitted by the expert Gaietry Pargass, the procedures leading up to the death by hanging of those convicted of murder terrorizes and depresses the prisoners; others cannot sleep due to nightmares, much less eat. 89. Similarly in Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. UK36 , the Court held that the death penalty which involved the deliberate and premeditated destruction of a human being by the State authorities causing physical pain and intense psychological suffering as a result of the foreknowledge of death, could be considered inhumane and degrading and, as such, contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 12