om8g,tu convicted for the same offence since some are released while others are condemned to life in prison. ln the Applicants view this amounts to a violation of Article 4 of the Charter. 10.|t is also the Applicants'submission that sections 445 and 446 of the Prison Standing Orders (4th Edition) 2003 direct that every case involving a sentence of life imprisonment should be submitted to the President for review. The Applicants aver that these provisions are not being implemented by the Respondent State especially in connection with prisoners serving long term sentences. The Applicants further submit that the Respondent State applies parole discriminately only benefitting those convicted of minor offences. According to the Applicants, this distinction in the implementation of the law, and the denial of parole is cruel and amounts to a violation of Article 9 (1) and (2) of the Charter and Article 5 of the UDHR. 11.The Applicants also submit that prisoners do not get paid for the work they do while in prison and that upon release they are not given a starting capital or pension but simply abandoned which is in violation of Article 15 of the Charter. 12.The Applicants further submit that their rights were violated by the lengthy period that they spent on remand pending the conclusion of their trials. They submit that the period that they spent on remand was not considered and/or deducted from their sentences which is in violation of Article 5 of the Charter and Article 5 of the UDHR. 13.The Applicants further submit that it is pointless to file a constitutional case in the High Court of the Respondent State because it is not independent, fair and just especially when it adjudicates cases that implicate failures in the judicial system. ln the Applicants' view, the Respondent State discredits all such matters without hearing the merits thereby violating Articles I and 10 of the UDHR Lt .,'..t \ GzY 5