sergeant Goepamang, he would not have died from injuries. The Complainants
state that during the trial, crucial ballistic analysis and expert medical evidence
was adduced which revealed a contradiction in the initial ballistic analysis relied
upon by the Court to convict Kobedi. They claim that there was gross medical
negligence towards Sgt.Goepamang during his time in hospital.
5.
However, the Complainants allege that the Court refused to receive or test the
AC
HP
R
said objective, material and compelling evidence thereby violating Articles 4, 5
and 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples‟ Rights (hereinafter the
African Charter). They claimed that this evidence was critical to proving the
innocence of Kobedi and to addressing the question whether the death sentence
was the most appropriate punishment.
6.
The Complainants also submit that the compulsory requirement under
Botswana legislation for Court to impose a death sentence for murder where no
extenuating circumstances are shown violates Article 2,3,4,5 and 7 of the African
Charter.
7.
Furthermore, the Complainants submit that Kobedi was living under fear of
the imposition of the death sentence for over a decade since he was first arrested
and was on death row since September 1998. The complainants allege that the
long delay in trying Kobedi also exposed him to unnecessary cruel, inhuman and
degrading treatment for the reason that he had lived for an unconscionable
amount of time awaiting the imposition of a death sentence.
8.
It is also allege by the Complainants that Kobedi was likely to suffer
unnecessary inhuman treatment and punishment not only because the execution
will be carried out by the cruel method of death by hanging, but also because he
2