94. The Respondent State, on its part, missed the opportunity to challenge the allegation that no reasonable notice or any notice at all was given of the date and time of execution of the victim. In that regard, this Commission has in many of its decisions38 held that facts uncontested by the Respondent State shall be considered as established. In view of the foregoing, the Commission will therefore hold this fact as established. 95. In Communication 240/01 Interights et al. (on behalf of Bosch) v. Botswana39, observed that a justice system must have a human face in matters of execution of death sentences by affording a condemned person an opportunity to arrange his affairs, to be visited by members of his intimate family before he dies, and to receive spiritual advice and comfort to enable him to compose himself, as best as he can, to face his ultimate ordeal. 96. In that regard, the Commission holds that the failure by the prison authorities of the Respondent State to inform the family and the lawyers of Mr Ping, of the date, the hour, the place of the execution as well as the exact place of the burial, violates article 5 of the African Charter, and by their conduct, have failed to respect the human dignity of both the family and the prisoner, which further violates Article 5. Alleged Violation of Article 1 97. Article 1 of the African Charter requires States Parties to the African Charter to recognize the rights guaranteed therein and to adopt legislative and other measures to give effect to these rights, duties and freedoms. The Commission had decided in several Communications that Article 1 of the African Charter proclaims a fundamental principle that not only should the States Parties 38 See Communications 25/89, 47/90, 56/91, 100/93; Free Legal Assistance Group et al. V. Zaire 39 Para. 41 30 | P a g e