penalty is an exceptional form of punishment which must also be considered in interpreting Article 4 of the African Charter. 116. The Complainants refer the African Commission to the of case of Maauwe & Motswetla concluded in 2006 by the Court of Appeal of the Respondent State to buttress the point that the criminal justice system in the Respondent State is not infallible. They argue that, because the criminal justice system is capable of being AC HP R fallible, the Courts should not ignore subsequent cogent evidence which if admitted could lead to the imposition of a lesser sentence other than the death penalty. It is forcefully submitted by the Complainants that Article 4 of the African Charter will be violated where a State Party through its judiciary imposes the death penalty pursuant to an institutionalized process that can result in an innocent person, or a person not deserving of the death penalty, being executed because material facts revealed post-appeal cannot be considered by the Court. 117. The Complainants further submit that the reception of such evidence seeks to ensure that only a person, who remains, up to the time of his execution, guilty beyond all reasonable doubts of the crime and is deserving of no penalty other than the death sentenced, should be hanged. They argue that if it should arise prior to the date of his hanging that the certainty of the conviction or appropriateness of the sentence is cast into doubt by right thinking people, then such evidence must be investigated and tested, otherwise, they submit, the execution will violate Article 4 of the African Charter. 118. It is argued by the Complainants that, if before his execution, it can be demonstrated by credible and cogent evidence that there was an incorrect conviction or that the condemned man is deserving of a lesser sentence than the death penalty, then the right to life protected under Article 4 of the African 29