cannot constitute the grounds for the violation of Charter rights. To hold otherwise would amount to speculation. The Commission finds that it is also not possible to rely on general reports about the pro deo legal aid scheme in the Respondent State without specifically applying them to the present case. 75. Therefore, since no evidence has been provided in the present case to show that the pro deo counsel allocated to Mr. Ping was young or inexperienced and therefore lacked the requisite skills, resources and commitment to defend him, resulting in the breach of his fair trial guarantees the Commission finds that the Complainants have failed to prove its case against the Respondent State in this respect. 76. On the extenuating circumstances, the Complainants submit that section 203(2) of the Penal Code of Botswana distinguishes extenuating from personal circumstances. According to the Complainant, the former refers to circumstances that go to the nature of the crime, which may be considered when deciding on the imposition of death penalty. The latter on the other hand relate to the circumstance of the accused and may not be considered during the imposition of the death penalty. In this regard, the Complainants argue that mitigating factors were not considered. The issue therefore is whether failure to consider personal circumstances of an individual while imposing death penalty could be deemed arbitrary as supported by the case laws provided by the Complainants. 77. From the appellate record available at the Commission, it is clear that the Victim had been protective to the son at one point.29 The Court of Appeal also only dealt with the existence or not of extenuating circumstances and found them to be non- existent with respect to the murder of the child.30 The issue of personal circumstances as explained by the Complainants was also dealt with under the extenuating circumstances part and found to be inapplicable with respect to the 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. Alleged Violation of Article 5 82.Article 5 of the African Charter states that every individual shall have the right to the respect of the dignity inherent in a human being and to the recognition of his legal status. All forms of exploitation and degradation of man particularly slavery, slave trade, torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and treatment shall be prohibited. 83. From the totality of submissions under this part from the Complainants, there are also three sub-issues to be considered by the Commission as follows: (i) hanging as a method of execution; (ii) "death row" phenomenon; (iii) secrecy of the execution and refusal to hand over body for burial. The Complainants aver that the victim's execution through the unnecessarily painful method of hanging, the secrecy of the 11