00135 5 court notes that the Applicants allege a joint violation of Articles 1 and 4 of the Charter. However, as reflected in its case-law, this Court examines an 94. The alleged violation of Article 1 of the charter only subsequent to finding violation of a substantive provision of the Charter.2l The Court will, therefore, flrst examine the alleged violation of Article 4 of the Charter. 95.Article 4 of the Charter provides that "Human beings are inviolable. Every human being shall be entitled to respect for his life and the integrity of his person. No one may be arbitrarily deprived of this right.' 96. Before examining the Applicants' claim in the present case, the court notes that, raised in the context of Article 4 of the charter, the question of the death penalty pertains to whether its imposition constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of the right to life. That is because Article 4 of the charter does not mention the death penalty. The Cou( observes that, despite a global trend towards the abolition of the death penalty, including the adoption of the Second option Protocol to the lnternational covenant on civil and political Rights, the prohibition of the death sentence in international law is still not absolute. 97. coming to the case at hand, the court notes that the Applicants allege that the Respondent state has violated the right to life guaranteed in Article 4 of the charter by not amending the provision of its law on the mandatory imposition the penal code of Tanzania, which stipulates that: "A person convicted of murder shall be of the death penalty. The said provision is Section 1g7 of sentenced to death". The question is therefore whether the legal provision for the mandatory imposition of the death sentence in cases of murder violates the right to life guaranteed in Article 4 of the Charter. 21 see Armand Guehi v. Tanzania (Merits and Reparations), SS 149-j50. see atso Kennedy owino onyachi and Another v. Tanzania (Merits), SS 158-159; and Alex Thomas v. Tanzania (Meritsi, 13s. S 27 (