Unanimously, On jurisdiction i. Dismisses the objection to its jurisdiction; ii. Declares that it has jurisdiction. On admissibility iii. Dismisses the objection to the admissibility of the Application; iv. Declares the Application admissible. On merits v. Holds that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicant’s right to be heard under Article 7(1) of the Charter; vi. Holds that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicant’s right to non-discrimination under by Article 2 of the Charter; vii. Holds that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicant’s right to equality before the law and to equal protection of the law, under Article 3(1) and (2) of the Charter; By a majority of eight (8) for, and two (2) against, viii. Holds that the Respondent State violated the Applicant’s right to life under Article 4 of the Charter, in relation to the mandatory imposition of the death penalty, which removes the discretion of the judicial officer; ix. Holds that the Respondent State violated the Applicant’s right to dignity under Article 5 of the Charter, in relation to the method of execution of the death penalty, that is, by hanging. 31