B. Non-pecuniary reparations i. Restoration of liberty 103. The Applicant prays the Court to order the Respondent State to restore his liberty by releasing him from prison. * 104. The Respondent State contests the Applicant’s prayer for release from prison. It submits that this Court is not an appellate court and it does not have criminal appellate jurisdiction whatsoever, to quash the decision of the Respondent State’s national courts and acquit prisoners from prison. *** 105. The Court recalls its position in Gozbert Henerico v. United Republic of Tanzania where it held that: The Court can only order a release if an Applicant sufficiently demonstrates or if the Court by itself establishes from its findings that the Applicant’s arrest or conviction is based entirely on arbitrary considerations and that his continued detention would occasion a miscarriage of justice.37 106. The Court notes its findings in the present Application that the provision for the mandatory imposition of the death sentence in the Respondent State’s legal framework violates the right to life protected in Article 4 of the Charter and that the method of execution of the death sentence by hanging violates the rights to dignity protected under Article 5 of the Charter. However, the Court notes that the violations did not impact on the Applicant’s guilt and 37 Henerico v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 202; Mgosi Mwita Makungu v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (7 December 2018) 2 AfCLR 550, § 84; Minani Evarist v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (21 September 2018) 2 AfCLR 402, § 82 and Juma v. Tanzania (judgment), supra, § 165. 26