v. Allegation that mandatory death penalty stemmed from an unfair trial 129. The Applicant contends that the alleged violations of Article 7(1) outlined earlier in this judgment have in turn occasioned a violation of her right to life under Article 4 of the Charter, by virtue of the mandatory death sentence. * 130. The Respondent State submits that the Applicant’s trial, conviction and sentence were in accordance with the law. It also contends that the Applicant was accorded the right to be heard and that the trial court properly considered the evidence of both parties. Similarly, the Court of Appeal ensured that the charges against the Applicant were proven beyond reasonable doubt and confirmed the impugned decision. It is the Respondent State’s submission, therefore, that the Applicant’s trial met all the criteria for a fair trial as enshrined in Article 7 of the Charter. *** 131. Given the findings herein earlier, the Court reiterates that the Respondent State violated the Applicant’s right to a fair trial only to the extent that there was an unreasonable delay between her arrest and the commencement of her trial before the High Court. However, the Court does not find the same to have vitiated the entirety of the Applicant’s trial before the domestic courts. In the circumstances, the Court holds that the sentence imposed on the Applicant did not flow from a process that breached the principle of fair trial and, therefore, dismisses the Applicant’s allegations. D. Alleged violation of Article 1 of the Charter 132. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent State violated Article 1 of the Charter by failing to amend its Penal Code which permits the mandatory death sentence as well as execution by hanging. * 38