iv. Publication 116. None of the Parties made any submissions in respect of the publication of this judgment. *** 117. The Court further considers that, for reasons now firmly established in its practice, and in the peculiar circumstances of this case, publication of this judgment is necessary. Given the current state of law in the Respondent State, threats to life associated with the mandatory death penalty persist in the Respondent State. Furthermore, the Court has not received any indication that necessary measures have been taken for the law to be amended and aligned with the Respondent State’s international human rights obligations. The Court thus finds it appropriate to order publication of this judgment within a period of three (3) months from the date of notification. IX. ON THE REQUEST FOR PROVISIONAL MEASURES 118. The Applicant, in his Application, had requested the Court to make use of its powers under Article 27(2) of the Protocol to order provisional measures. 119. The Respondent State asserts that this Court does not have jurisdiction to order provisional measures against the Respondent State because first of all the punishment of death penalty is constitutional, in line with the Respondent State’s laws and also in conformity with Article 6 of the ICCPR. Secondly, the Respondent State maintains that this Court does not have jurisdiction to order provisional measures against it, since this Court does not have jurisdiction to set aside the death penalty imposed on the Applicant by the domestic courts. For these reasons, the Respondent State submits that the request lacks merit and should be dismissed. *** 29