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 nonexistent 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 29 30 Court of Appeal of Botswana, Criminal Appeal No. 045 of 2005, para 4. As above, 41-42. 24 | P a g e