norms and standard. They stated that the trials were carried out in public and in accordance with the assurances provided by the law. They also state that the victims were represented by lawyers of their choice during trial. 228. Article 4 of the African Charter provides that „human beings are inviolable. Every human being shall be entitled to respect for his life and the integrity of his person. No one shall be arbitrary deprived of this right‟. 229. The victims were charged, inter alia, under Article 86 b (ii) and (iii) of the Egyptian Penal Code. This law provides that the punishment for the crimes specified in those provisions is death penalty where “the action of the offender leads to the death of the victim of the crime” 141 or “the crime which occurred was the object of the efforts or intelligence /contacts or involvement in committing it.”142 230. The above law imposes a penalty on a particular crime in specified circumstances but did not provide an avenue for a competent judiciary to evaluate the appropriate penalty, in light of all of the circumstances of the case. The penalty is effectively mandated by law for certain categories of offences, with the President empowered to decide not to apply that sentence if he so decides. This is at odds with the requirements of right to life, as reflected in international legal practice. 231. The African Commission in the case of International Pen and Others (on behalf of Saro-Wiwa) v Nigeria143 took the view that the execution and implementation of a death sentence emanating from a trial which did not conform to Article 7 of the African Charter will amount to an arbitrary deprivation of life. Having held that the trial of the applicants offended 141 Article 86 b(ii)(iii) of the Penal Code added by Law No. 97 of 1992 on Counter-terrorism). 142 Ibid. 143 Communication 137/94, 139/94, 154/96 and 161/97, para. 103 70