On jurisdiction i. Dismisses the objection to its material jurisdiction; ii. Declares that it has jurisdiction. On admissibility iii. Dismisses the objections to admissibility based on non-exhaustion of local remedies and failure to file the Application within a reasonable time; iv. Declares the Application admissible; On merits v. Holds that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicant’s right to non-discrimination guaranteed under Article 2 of the Charter; vi. Holds that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicant’s right to equality before the law and equal protection by the law guaranteed under Article 3 of the Charter; vii. Holds that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicant’s right to a fair trial, protected by Article 7(1)(c)) of the Charter. By a majority of Eight (8) for, and Two (2) against, viii. Holds that the Respondent State violated the Applicant’s right to life protected under Article 4 of the Charter by reason of the mandatory imposition of the death penalty on him; ix. Holds that the Respondent State violated the Applicant’s right to inherent dignity protected under Article 5 of the Charter in relation to the method of execution of the death penalty, that is, by hanging. 32