jurisprudence that the mandatory nature of the death penalty constitutes a violation of the right to life, as guaranteed under Article 4 of the Charter.17 86. Consequently, the Court holds that the Respondent State violated the Applicant’s right to life as provided under Article 4 of the Charter given the mandatory nature of the death penalty. D. Violation of the right to dignity 87. The Court notes that the Applicant does not allege this violation nor does he raise the issue of execution of the death sentence by hanging. 88. However, the Court notes that the Applicant was sentenced to death by hanging. In this regard, the Court recalls its established jurisprudence that hanging as a method of executing the death penalty constitutes a violation of the right to inherent dignity as guaranteed under Article 5 of the Charter.18 89. Accordingly, the Court holds that the Respondent State violated the Applicant’s right to inherent dignity protected under Article 5 of the Charter through the method of executing the death penalty, that is, by hanging. E. Alleged violation of the right to a fair trial 90. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent State violated his right to a fair trial guaranteed under Article 7(1) of the Charter without however substantiating the allegation. * 91. The Respondent State avers that there is no evidence to prove this allegation. It is the Respondent State’s contention that the Applicant and his 17 Ally Rajabu and others v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (28 November 2019) 3 AFCLR 539, §§ 104-114; Juma v. Tanzania, ibid, §§ 120 to 131 and Gozbert Henerico v. United Republic of Tanzania, AfCHPR, Application No. 056/2016, Judgment on 10 January 2022 (merits and reparations), § 160. 18 Rajabu and Others v. Tanzania, ibid, §§ 119 and 120; Henrico v. Tanzania, ibid, §§ 169 and 170 and Juma v. Tanzania, §§ 135 and 136. 21