constituting inhuman and degrading rarest of rare cases which the proposed warrant it. treatment by the Constitutional Court Because in S v Makwanyane. reintroduce More High seek to penalty for crimes in 2011, the South which are not possible to be defined as Court in South Africa ‘the recently Gauteng death Bills most serious crimes,” that undertook a detailed consideration of phrase the law, these will, if passed, constitute a right to life in the extradition Botswana, context of an made by request a State which is understood as breach of obligations maintained of the death penalty. The South Gauteng thereby High Court described international Botswana the as “a pariah state not synchronized with the in international international the subject legal Philippines, the and Philippines to approbation and criticism. majority of African countries that have either abandoned implement or are the refusing death to To clearly penalty.” The Court went on to note that “[i]n South Africa regarded as [the death a cruel, penalty] inhuman avoid doubt, and unambiguously Supreme Court and - all narcotics crimes (including crimes of importation, India narrow interpretation “most serious of the a phrase « crimes influence involved sexual assault and murder of «all property a minor child. The Court noted that the crime applied only to manufacture, aggravated the penalty The possession, use, or « kidnapping; case death crimes.” adopted supply, maintaining “dens”); of Maharashtrag, the of prohibits is distribution, v. State law the imposition of the death penalty for: degrading punishment.” In Khade international the 32 of of by a crimes “plunder” as being under narcotic drug; including that the crime is