in 2019, 2021, 2022 and 2023; yet, as at the date of the present judgment, the Court does not have any information to the effect that the Respondent State has implemented the said orders. 142. The Court notes that in the present judgment it has found that the mandatory imposition of the death penalty violates the right to life guaranteed under Article 4 of the Charter and therefore holds that the said sentence ought to be removed from the laws of the Respondent State within six months of the notification of the present Judgment. 143. Similarly, in its previous judgments,76 this Court has held that a finding of violation of the right to dignity owing to the use of hanging as a method of execution of the death penalty warranted an order that the said method be removed from the books of the Respondent State. In light of its finding in this Judgment, the Court orders the Respondent State to take all necessary measures to remove “hanging” from its laws as the method of execution of the death sentence, within six months of the notification of the present Judgment. ii. Release and rehearing 144. The Applicant submits that the restoration of his liberty is the most feasible way in which adequate reparation could be said to have been granted, given the harrowing circumstance of imprisonment identified earlier and the moral prejudice that ensued therefrom. * 145. The Respondent State did not specifically address this prayer. *** 76 Jeshi v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, §§ 111, 112, 118; Romward William v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 030/2016, Judgment of 13 February 2024 (merits and reparations), § 94. 39