D. Alleged violation of the right to dignity 82. The Applicants submit that the Respondent State violated the First Applicant’s rights “… and subjected him to torture when his caution statement was taken out of mandatory time of 4 hours.” * 83. The Respondent State submits that “… at no time during the investigation, prosecution, trial or appeal were the Applicants subject to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment.” As for the death penalty, it reiterates that the Applicants were sentenced to the death penalty in accordance with “… national and international restrictions placed on human rights which does not render them absolute.” 84. It is also the Respondent State’s argument that the “Applicants were never handled in an undignified manner but underwent the procedures of the justice system for the offence of murder as all other persons accused and convicted for the offence of murder.” As for the allegations of torture, the Respondent State contends that the Applicants, who were represented by counsel during all domestic proceedings, never raised this allegation before the High Court or Court of Appeal. It thus submits that there has been no violation of the Applicants’ rights under Article 5 of the Charter. *** 85. The Court notes that Article 5 of the Charter provides as follows: Every individual shall have the right to the respect of the dignity inherent in a human being and to the recognition of [their] legal status. All forms of exploitation and degradation of [human beings], particularly slavery, slave trade, torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and treatment shall be prohibited. 22