murder of the child. For the avoidance of doubt, the Commission rejects the distinction being relied upon by the Complainants. 78. From the totality of the submissions before the Commission, there is nothing to suggest that the imposition of the death penalty in Botswana is mandatory and therefore arbitrary. Accordingly, the Commission dismisses the arguments of the Complainants regarding the issue of extenuating circumstance and personal circumstances as discussed above. 79. On the clemency procedures, the Complainants submit that the clemency procedure as carried out in the Respondent State’s jurisdiction is arbitrary. They further contend that the process even though involving the Clemency Committee is arbitrary since it is purely a preserve of the Executive exercised by the President and not subject to a judicial review process. 80. The Commission affirms its position that even though ‘the doctrine of clemency is universally recognised [it] does not preclude the African Commission from making a determination on it, especially if it believed that its use has been abused to the extent that human rights as contained in the African Charter have been violated.’31 81. The Complainants’ main argument in this part is that there is no system of judicial review and therefore the clemency procedure is arbitrary. The Commission finds that the non-existence of a judicial review process is also not a violation of the Charter since clemency procedures are prerogative powers exercised on behalf of the State. See Communication 245/2002: Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v Zimbabwe (2006) AHRLR 128 (ACHPR 2006) paras 190, 212. 31 25 | P a g e