PART B: Substantive Norms on Torture in the African Regional Human Rights System As the facts disclosed in the Commission’s decision do not indicate that any such opportunity was provided to the convicted person between the dismissal of her appeal (on 30 January 2001) and her execution (on 31 March 2001), it appears that the facts in this particular case in fact constituted a violation on this ground. Rather than declining to rule on this issue, the Commission should have given the Respondent State an opportunity to prepare arguments. It is regrettable that the undue haste, which characterised the handling of the case at the domestic level, continued at the international level. In other cases, however, the Commission has recognised and applied due process guarantees as limitations on the use of capital punishment under the African Charter. Thus, the imposition of capital punishment in breach of the due process guarantees in the Charter constitutes a violation of the right to life, and arguably a violation of the prohibition against torture.232 In the Sudan and Mauritania cases, the Commission ruled that the fact that a legal process precedes punishment does not preclude the obligation to respect the rights to life and human dignity. Where a legal process violates the Charter, punishment resulting therefrom is also in violation of the Charter. In the Sudan cases, the Commission determined that the execution of 28 army officers following their trial was unlawful because the right to counsel under Article 7 was also violated.233 The Sudan communications alleged that the officers executed on 24 April 1990 were denied legal representation. The State submitted that its national legislation permits the accused to be assisted in his or her defence by a legal advisor or any other person of his or her choice, including before the Special Courts, subject to Court approval. The State argued that the court procedures were strictly followed in the case of these officers. The Commission concluded that in the case of the 28 executed army officers, basic standards of fair trial were not met.234 The Commission rejected the State’s statement that the executions were carried out in conformity with its internal legislation. It found that the State should instead provide proof that its laws are in accordance with the provisions of the African Charter, and that in the conduct of the trials the accused’s right to defence was respected.235 By contrast, in Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights and INTERIGHTS v. Egypt (334/06), in which the complainants were sentenced to death following an unfair trial with no right to appeal, the Commission held that while the unfair trial proceedings 232 ACHPR, International Pen, Constitutional Rights Project, INTERIGHTS (on behalf of Ken Saro-Wiwa, Jr.) and Civil Liberties Organisation v. Nigeria, Comm. Nos. 137/94, 139/94, 154/96 & 161/97, para. 78. 233 ACHPR, Amnesty International and Others v. Sudan, Comm. Nos. 48/90, 50/91, 52/91 & 89/93, paras. 65-66. 234 Ibid. 235 Ibid., para. 66. 61