Court that the Respondent State violated Articles 4, 5 and 7 of the Charter have a bearing on the sentence pronounced against the Applicant on account of the mandatory nature of the death penalty, hence warranting remedial measures. 171. Consequently, the Court orders the Respondent State to take all necessary measures for the rehearing of the case on the sentencing of the Applicant through a process that does not allow a mandatory imposition of the death penalty, while upholding the full discretion of the judicial officer. iii. Restitution 172. The Applicant points out that she cannot be returned to the state she was in prior to her incarceration. Relying on Sudan Human Rights Organisation & Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions v. Sudan, she submits that she be paid damages in the quest to restore her to the situation prior to the occurrence of the violations. * 173. The Respondent State submits that the since the Applicant is not a victim of its deliberate actions or negligence, she cannot pray for damages under the umbrella of restitution. *** 174. The Court notes that the Applicant claims for damages as a form of restitution. However, given the Court’s earlier orders for compensation to be paid to the Applicant for the moral prejudice she has suffered; the order for the Respondent State to hold a sentencing hearing for the Applicant; and the Court’s pronouncement on the incompatibility of the mandatory death penalty with the Charter, it is the Court’s finding that the claim for restitution has already been catered for. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Applicant’s claim for damages as a form of restitution. 48