58. The Complainants submit that section 26(1) of the Botswana’s Penal Code prescribes death by hanging and that section 18 of the Prison Act requires that a prisoner should be given the death warrant at least 24 hours before execution. In Botswana, the Complainants submit that a warrant is usually given a few hours before the execution and that the body of the prisoner is usually not given back to the family instead they are buried in a grave inside the prison ground. In the present case, the Complainants contend that the mother of the prisoner and a representative of Ditshwanelo were denied access to the prisoner on 31 March 2006, a day before his execution which they learnt of via the radio. 59. The Complainants submit that the failure to inform the prisoner, his mother or his lawyer in advance of the scheduled execution constitutes inhuman treatment.22 Similarly, the failure to release the body to the family for burial constitutes a violation of Article 5 of the Charter. The Complainants refer to the case of Interights & Ors (On Behalf Of Bosch) v Botswana (supra) to argue that the secrecy of the execution did not allow the Victim to receive the comfort of intimate family members and spiritual advice before his death. That the Manner in which the Warrant is Served in the Republic of Botswana Acts to Deny the Prisoner the Protection of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights 60. The Complainants submit that both the manner in which the warrant of execution is served (to the prisoner or family or legal representative) and the subsequent execution prevents the Complainants from finalising all available avenues for redress, in particular, the Complaints procedure under the African Charter. The Complainants submit that until the procedure for clemency has been exhausted, the prisoner is expected to wait for the exhaustion of local remedies. And therefore to inform the Prisoner about the denial of the Clemency See UN Human Rights Committee cases of Mariya Staselovich v Belarus Communication No 887/1999 para 9.2 and Communication 886/1999,Natalia Shedko v Belarus No. 886/1999 para 10.2. 22 19 | P a g e