long.14 The Court emphasises that, detention on death row is inherently inhuman and encroaches upon human dignity.15 This Court reiterates that the distress associated with detention awaiting execution of the death sentence stems from the natural fear of death and the uncertainty that a condemned prisoner has to live with.16 In such a case, States such as the Respondent are encouraged to determine appropriate sentences that remove the constant possibility of the enforcement of the death penalty for persons originally sentenced to death. 71. The Court notes, in the present case that the situation is exacerbated by the fact that the Applicant was sentenced to death without consideration of mitigating circumstances including an alternative sentence, as the domestic court’s discretion was removed by law, in contravention of the Charter. Given these circumstances, the Applicant invariably suffered psychological and emotional distress which constitutes a violation of his right to dignity. 72. Consequently, the Court finds that the Applicant’s right to dignity protected under Article 5 of the Charter was violated. VIII. REPARATIONS 73. The Applicant prays the Court to grant him reparations for the violations he suffered, including quashing his conviction and sentence and ordering his release. 74. The Respondent State prays the Court to dismiss the Applicant’s prayer for reparations. *** 14 Ghati Mwita v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 012/2019, Judgment of 1 December 2022, § 87. 15 Ibid. 16 Misalaba v. Tanzania (judgment), supra, § 16. 17