rr0-q.05&? Respondent State. At paragraph 7.3 o'f its Communication, the Committee clarified this point, referring to its jurisprudence to the effect that <the.automatic and mandatory imposition of the death penalty constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of life, in violation of article 6, paragraph 1, of the Covenant>, reiterating that this is so "where the death penalty is imposed without regard to the defendant's personal circumstances or the circumstances of the particular offence.ls The existence of a de facto moratorium on the death penalty is not sufficient to make a mandatory death sentence consistent with the Covenant>20. The Court could have shown a sense of initiative. ln the light of the foregoing, I append this dissenting opinion Blaise Tchikaya, Judge 22 March 2019 s$ $U MAN A NO SJ rI 0f s oRfltI'.. Sl ''HRC, Communication, Mwamba v. Zambia,lo March 2010, parc.6.3; Chlsanga v. Zambia, 18 October 2005, para. 7 .4; Kennedy v. Tinidad and Tobago,26 March 2002, para. 7 .3, Thompson v Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, 18 October 2000, para. 8.2. 'oHRC, Communication Weerawansa v Sri Lanka,17 March 2009, para.7.2. 9