sentence will be considered an arbitrary deprivation of the right to life in violation of this Article.620 4.3.2.2 Corporal punishment In Doebbler v Sudan, the African Commission made it unequivocally clear that corporal punishment is strictly prohibited under Article 5 of the ACHPR, holding: “There is no right for individuals, and particularly the government of a country to apply physical violence to individuals for offences. Such a right would be tantamount to sanctioning State sponsored torture under the Charter and contrary to the very nature of this human rights treaty.”625 While the Commission has not yet considered a case of corporal punishment by a private actor, it is 5. AfrCommHPR, Res.42(XXVI)99: Resolution Urging the State to Envisage a Moratorium on Death Penalty (1999). 620 See, for example: International Pen and Others (on behalf of Ken Saro-Wiwa Jr.) v Nigeria (1998), op. cit., §103; Forum of Conscience v Sierra Leone, AfrCommHPR, Communication No. 223/98, 28th session, 23 October–6 November 2000, §19. 621 Interights and Others (on behalf of Bosch) v Botswana, AfrCommHPR, Communication No. 240/2001, 34th session, 6–20 November 2003. 622 Ibid. §5. 623 Ibid. §31. 624 Ibid. §41. 625 Doebbler v Sudan (2003), op. cit., §42. The Commission referred to the ECHR case Tyler v UK in its judgement: §38. 4 The AFrican Regional System The Commission was invited to consider the death penalty in the context of Article 5 in Interights and Others (on behalf of Bosch) v Botswana.621 The complainant in that case argued that the “cruel method of death by hanging [would expose her]… to unnecessary suffering, degradation and humiliation.”622 The Commission failed to address this issue in its findings, although it did dismiss the argument that imposition of the death penalty was disproportionate to the crime, and therefore constituted a violation of Article 5, “noting that there is no rule of international law which prescribes the circumstances under which the death penalty may be imposed.”623 The complainant further argued that failure to give reasonable notice of the date and time of execution amounted to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. The Commission explicitly declined to consider this issue in its findings, stating that the respondent State had not been given sufficient notice of the argument in order to respond. However, the Commission did note the need for a justice system to “have a human face in matters of execution of death sentences,” indicating that it is at least possible for circumstances surrounding the imposition of the death penalty to breach Article 5.624 139