166. In order to guarantee the non-repetition of the violations at issue herein, the Court orders the Respondent State to undertake all necessary measures to repeal the provision for the mandatory death penalty in its Penal Code.56 ii. Restoration of liberty 167. According to the Applicant, there are compelling reasons for the Court to order her release. She contends, in particular, that re-opening the defence case or holding a re-trial would “result in prejudice and occasion miscarriage of justice”, given the following circumstances: the passage of time since the alleged offence; the unfairness of the Applicant remaining in custody pending a retrial after ten years in detention; the risk that a re-trial may be subject to an unlawful mandatory death sentence; the existence of tainted evidence that is not capable of being corrected in fresh proceedings; and the Applicant’s rehabilitation. * 168. The Respondent State submits that the Court should dismiss this prayer insofar as the Applicant was arrested, found culpable and sentenced in accordance with the law. *** 169. Regarding the request to be set free, the Court recalls that it can only make such order in compelling circumstances. The Court notes that its findings in the present Application only pertain to the sentencing and do not therefore affect the conviction of the Applicant. The prayer for release is therefore not warranted, and the Court consequently dismisses the same. 170. The Court however consider that, while the Applicant states not wishing for the reopening of the defence case or a retrial, a related order is in the interest of justice to give effect to the correlated order that the domestic provision on the mandatory death sentence be removed. The findings of this 56 Ally Rajabu and Others v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), § 136. 47