also argues that the death penalty is only imposed after due process has been followed. 58. According to the Respondent State, the death penalty is “lawful, procedural and constitutional.” The Respondent State also contends it has had a moratorium on the death penalty for the last (20) twenty years. *** 59. The Court notes that the Applicant alleges the violation of his right to life under Article 4 of the Charter by virtue of his death sentence. 60. The Court observes that Article 4 of the Charter provides that “[h]uman beings are inviolable. Every human being shall be entitled to respect for [their] life and the integrity of [their] person. No one may be arbitrarily deprived of this right.” 61. On the arbitrary deprivation of the right to life as protected under Article 4 of the Charter, the Court recalls its established jurisprudence as held in Ally Rajabu and Others v. United Republic of Tanzania.10 In the said judgment and subsequent judgments, the Court held that the mandatory imposition of the death sentence would be arbitrary and therefore a violation of the right to life if i) it is not provided by law; ii) it is not meted out by a competent court; or iii) it does not result from proceedings that follow due process.11 The Court notes that the Applicant challenges the sentence that was meted out on him. 62. As to whether the death penalty is provided by law, the Court notes that Section 197 of the Respondent State’s Penal Code (1981) provides that the sole penalty for a person convicted of murder is the death sentence, and 10 Ally Rajabu and Others v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (28 November 2019) 3 AfCLR 539. 11 Rajabu and Others v. Tanzania, ibid, §§ 99-100. 14