0mtl5 6. The Applicants have filed a joint application since they all claim to be aggrieved by the manner in which authorities in the Respondent State have exercised the prerogative of mercy which is vested in the President of the Respondent State. Additionally, the First Applicant and the Seventh Applicant are complaining about the legality of their sentence for the offence of armed robbery. B, Alleged violations 7. All the Applicants submit that the Respondent State discriminates against prisoners serving long term sentences in the manner in which it implements the prerogative of mercy under Article 45 of its Constitution. ln the Applicants' view, the Respondent State automatically excludes prisoners serving long term sentences from the prerogative of mercy thereby violating Article 2 of the Charter and Article 13(1) (2) (3) (a) and (5) of the Respondent State's Constitution. The Applicants further contend that prisoners serving long term sentences are isolated and discriminated against based on their social or economic status since they do not earn a pardon on the basis of their good behaviour after serving one third of their sentences unlike all other prisoners. This, the Applicants contend, is in violation of Articles 3, 19 and 28 of the Charter. 8. The Applicants further submit that the Respondent State treats prisoners convicted of corruption and other economic crimes lightly and favourably compared to other prisoners since they can access the presidential pardon twice, a condition, which is not afforded to other convicts. The Applicants' contend that this violates Article 3(1) and (2) of the Charter, Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as "the UDHR) and Article 1O7A 2(a) of the Respondent State's Constitution. 9. The Applicants also submit that the Respondent State's implementation of the prerogative of mercy discriminates among prisoners who were 4 iir lr4 -\ -{i