13 Amnesty International v. Zambia Communication 212/98 (2000) RADH 359 (ACHPR 1999) para 42 . See also Civil Liberties Organisation (on behalf of the Nigerian Bar Association) v. Nigeria Communication 101/93 (2000) RADH 187 (ACHPR 1995) para 15 14 Emphasis by the Commission 15 Interights and Others (on behalf of Bosch) v. Botswana Communication 240/2001 (2003) RADH 57 (ACHPR 2003) paras 42-52 . 16 See The African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights Resolution requesting the States to consider suspending the death penalty adopted at the 26th Ordinary Session of the Commission held from 1st to 15 November 1999 in Kigali, Rwanda 17 See The African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights Directives and Principles on the Right to a Fair Trial and Judicial Assistance in Africa (2001) point A(2)(j) 18 Op. cit. point C(10)(b) (sic!) 19 Women's Legal Aid Center (on behalf of Moto) v. Tanzania Communication 243/2001 (2004) RADH 120 (ACHPR 2004) para 47 20 International Pen and Others (pon behalf of Saro-Wiwa) v. Nigeria Communications 137/94, 139/94, 154/96 et 161/97. (2000) RADH 217 (ACHPR 2000) paras 88, 91-93 Emphasis by the Commission 21 Directives on the right to a fair trial, op. cit. point H(c). 22 See Purohit and Moore v. Gambia Communication 241/01 paras 71-72 . See also Constitutional Rights Project (concerning Zamani Lakwot and six others) v. Nigeria Communication 87/93 para 12 23 Emphasis by the Commission. 24 Sankara v. Burkina Faso Communication 1159/2003 (2006) AHRLR 23 (HRC 2006) para 6.5 × With regard to the State party's claims relating to the non-use of certain contentious remedies concerning the denial of justice, the Committee noted that the State party had confined itself to a mere recital of remedies available under Burkina Faso law, without providing any information on the relevance of those remedies in the specific circumstances of the case or demonstrating that they would have constituted effective and available remedies. With particular regard to the application for disqualification of the President of the Supreme Court, the Committee considered that the authors could not know the Court's decision in advance, and that it would be for the Committee to determine, in the examination of the merits, whether the President's decision had been arbitrary or constituted a denial of justice 25 See Abubakar v. Ghana Communication 103/93 (2000) RADH 116 (ACHPR 1996) para 17 (sic!) ; Pagnoulle (on behalf of Mazou) v. Cameroon Communication 39/90 (2000) RADH 61 (ACHPR 1997) para 31 (sic!). 26 See Embga Mekongo Louis v. Cameroon Communication 59/91 (2000) RADH 60 (ACHPR 1995) para 2 ; Antoine Bissangou v. Congo Communication 253/02 (2006) AHRLR 80 (ACHPR 2006). 27 See Kenneth Good v. Botswana Communication 313/05 (2010) AHRLR 43 (ACHPR 2010) para 245 (sic!). 16