the ICCPR does not prohibit the death penalty, it prohibits the arbitrary deprivation of one’s life and for states which have not abolished the death penalty, the ICCPR requires that the death penalty should be imposed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with national laws. The Respondent State further notes that the ICCPR requires that the death penalty be meted out in accordance with the law and pursuant to a final judgment rendered by a competent court. 68. The Respondent State therefore contends that the Applicant (i) was convicted of murder which is one of the most serious crimes, (ii) was convicted by a competent court, and (iii) that he appealed to the Court of Appeal, which is the highest court in the Respondent State’s judicial hierarchy, which dismissed his appeal. 69. The Respondent State also notes that the High Court and the Court of Appeal have been established by the Constitution and that they discharge their mandate in accordance with the Constitution of the Respondent State and other laws of the land, as per Article 107B of the Constitution, which reads as follows: In exercising the powers of dispensing justice, all courts shall have freedom and shall be required only to observe the provisions of the Constitution and those of the laws of the land. 70. It is for the above reasons, that the Respondent State submits that this allegation is frivolous and misconceived and should be dismissed for lack of merit. *** 71. The Court recalls that Article 4 of the Charter provides that: “[h]uman 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”. 72. The Court further notes Article 6 of the ICCPR, which states that: 18