123. The Court notes that the violations found in the present case have no bearing on the Applicant's guilt and conviction and that his conviction affected only the mandatory nature of the sentence imposed. The decision of the domestic courts on the commission of the crime is not in any way called into question in the proceedings before this Court. Furthermore, it follows from the measure ordered above in relation to the holding of a new sentencing hearing that the Applicant remains in detention pending that hearing. The Court therefore dismisses the request for release made in the present case. 124. The Court recalls that it has considered in its jurisprudence the possibility of holding a new sentencing hearing in cases where the mandatory death penalty is imposed. The Court considers that it is appropriate to order a similar measure in the present case. iii. Holding a new hearing 125. The Applicant did not submit on this point. *** 126. The foregoing notwithstanding, the Court considers that it is in the interest of justice to order a new hearing in order to give effect to the consequential measure to repeal the domestic mandatory death penalty provision. The Court reiterates its previous position that the violations committed in the Applicant’s case has no bearing on his guilt and conviction, and that the conviction is affected only as regards the mandatory nature of the sentence imposed on him. The Court therefore considers it appropriate to order reparations in this respect. 127. The Court therefore orders the Respondent State to take all necessary measures to hold a sentencing hearing for the Applicant in a procedure that does not provide for the mandatory death penalty and upholds discretionary power of the judge. 28