41.Furthermore, the Respondent argued that Applicants have expressly stated in their narration of facts that they did not lodge an appeal within the stipulated time, their claims that their right to appeal to in Article 7 of the African Charter was violated is rather misleading and untrue as they were not at any point prevented from filing an appeal. In the instant suit, the all the Applicant did was to approach the Board of the Prerogative of Mercy for clemency. There was no attempt to appeal and till date no attempt has been made to appeal the sentence neither did the Applicant approach the legal aid to help their appeal process. 42.They further state that the domestic law has provisions where parties seeking to appeal a decision can apply for extension of time. This, the Applicants have not done but chose to approach this Court about 16 years after the judgment alleging unsatisfactory legal representation. 43.In conclusion the Respondent urge the Court to decline jurisdiction over this suit as this Court cannot be used as a mechanism to appeal decision of municipal courts. Applicants’ response 44.The Applicants in their response submit that the Court has jurisdiction to hear the Application. Their case is that they have been on death row for more than 16 years, where they have continued to undergo daily mental and psychological torture by not knowing when death would come knocking. In addition they have serious medical conditions which the Respondents cannot cater to, thus the claim for their immediate release. 15