witness.63 Furthermore, there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the questioning of witnesses by the assessors was improper and prejudicial to the outcome of the decision reached. 116. The Court, therefore, finds that the Applicant has failed to demonstrate how the court appointed assessors did not discharge their duty as provided under the Respondent State’s laws. 117. Consequently, the Court dismisses this allegation and finds that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicant’s right to be tried by an impartial court protected by Article 7(1)(d) of the Charter regarding the questioning of witnesses by the assessors. D. Violation of the right to life 118. As earlier stated in this judgment the Applicant does not make any allegation of the breach of the right to life. However, it emerges from the record that the Applicant was mandatorily sentenced to death under a law that this Court has previously held does not allow the judicial officer discretion to impose a different punishment. In the circumstances of the present Application, the Court reiterates its jurisprudence that the imposition of the mandatory death penalty is a violation of the right to life under Article 4 of the Charter.64 119. The Court, therefore, holds that the Respondent State violated the Applicant’s right to life protected under Article 4 of the Charter by imposing the mandatory death penalty on the Applicant. 63 Exhibit 000089. 64 Ally Rajabu and Others v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (28 November 2019) 3 AfCLR 539, §§ 104-114; Amini Juma v. United Republic of Tanzania (judgment) (30 September 2021) 5 AfCLR 431, §§ 120-131. 32