54. The Court holds that the Respondent State did not violate Article 2 of the Charter as alleged herein. 55. Having held that the Respondent State did not violate the rights of the Applicant, the Court nevertheless reiterates its finding in its previous cases14 that the mandatory death penalty is a violation of the right to life among other rights in the Charter and should thus be expunged from the laws of the Respondent State. Furthermore, the Applicant should be given a hearing on the sentencing through a procedure that does not allow the mandatory imposition of the death sentence and which upholds the full discretion of the judicial officer.15 VIII. REPARATIONS 56. The Applicant prays the Court to grant him reparations for the violations he suffered including quashing his conviction and sentence and ordering his release. 57. The Respondent State prays the Court to dismiss the Applicant’s request for reparations. *** 58. Article 27(1) of the Protocol provides that: if the Court finds that there has been violation of a human or peoples’ rights, it shall make appropriate orders to remedy the violation, including the payment of fair compensation or reparation. 14 Ally Rajabu and Others v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (28 November 2019) 3 AfCLR 539, §§ 104-114. See also, Amini Juma v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 024/2016, Judgment of 30 September 2021, §§ 120-131; Gozbert Henerico v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 056/2016, Judgment of 10 January 2022, § 160. 15 Ally Rajabu and Others v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), § 171. See also, Amini Juma v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), § 174; Gozbert Henerico v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), § 217. 14