therefore, the condition of the death sentence being provided for by law is met. 63. On whether the penalty was meted out by a competent court, the Court notes that the High Court is empowered to hear cases where an accused has been charged with murder.12 In the present case, the Applicant was charged with murder at the High Court and was convicted to death by the same Court, which means that the sentence was meted out by a competent court. 64. Finally, as to whether the death sentence resulted from due process, the Court notes that the national courts sentenced the Applicant to death for the crime of murder following his conviction. Furthermore, the Court did not find fault with the procedure leading to the conviction of the Applicant. However, the Court finds that the mandatory nature of the death penalty, as provided for under Section 197 of the Respondent State’s Penal Code, leaves the national courts with no choice but to sentence a convict to death, resulting in arbitrary deprivation of life. By taking away the discretionary power of a judge to impose a sentence on the basis of proportionality and the personal situation of a convicted person, the mandatory death sentence does not comply with the requirements of due process. 65. In the circumstances, the Court holds that the mandatory death sentence, as prescribed by section 197 of the Respondent State’s Penal Code, does not pass the third criterion for assessing arbitrariness of the sentence. It thus holds, in line with its jurisprudence, that the mandatory death penalty constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of the right to life under Article 4 of the Charter. 12 Article 108(1) of the Constitution of Tanzania – has original jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters. 15