001339 155. The Court considers, with respect to these prayers, that while it does not assume appellate jurisdiction over domestic courts,sl it has the power to make any order as appropriate where it finds that national proceedings were not conducted in line with international standards. 156. As the Court has previously held, such orders can be made only where the circumstances so require.s2 The said circumstances are to be determined on a case-by-case basis having due consideration mainly to proportionality between the measure sought and the extent of the violation established. consequently, the violation that supports the request for a particular relief must have fundamentally affected domestic processes to warrant such a request. ultimately, determination must be made with the ultimate purpose of upholding fairness and preventing double jeopardy.s3 157. With respect to the prayer for the conviction to be quashed, the Court notes that, in the present case, its findings do not affect the Applicants, conviction.sa The prayer is therefore dismissed. 158. Regarding the prayer that the sentence should be set aside, the court found in the present matter that the provision for the mandatory imposition of the death sentence in the Respondent State's legal framework violates the right to life protected in Article 4 of the charter. However, in light of the court's finding that the violations did not impact on the Applicants' guilt and conviction, the sentencing is affected only to the extent of the mandatory nature of the penalty. A remedy is therefore wananted in that respect. The court consequenfly orders 51 see Armand Guehi v. Tanzania (Merits and Reparations), g 33; Application No. 027120.15. Judgment ot 21109118, Minani Evarist v. united Republic of Tanzania (Merits), 5 81i Mohamed Abubakari v. Tanzania (Merits), op. ctr., g. 28. 52 See for instance, Alex Thomas v. Tanzania, op. crt, $. 157. 53 see Armand Guehi v. Tanzania, opcr?., g 1o4;Application No. 016/216. Judgment ot zltogl2olg (Merits), Diocles William v. United Republic of Tanzania, g 101; Minani Evarist v. Tanzanla, op. cif., g. 82; Loayza-Tamayo v. Peru, Merits, tAcHR series c No 33 [1997], gg 83 and a4; Del Rio prada i. spain, 42750109 - Grand chamber Judgment, [2013] ECHR 1oo4, g. 85; Annette pagnouile (on behatf of Abdoulaye Mazou) v. cameroun (2000) AHRLR 57 (AcHpR Ig97) operative provisions; and Communication No. 796/1998, Lloyd Reece v. Jamaica, Views under Article S(4) of the Optional Protocol, 21 July 2003, U.N. Doc. CCPRrcnADng6/199S, S. 9. s See Application No. 006/2013. Judgment of 04/06i 19 (Reparations), Wilfred Onyango Nganyi and Others v. Tanzania (Reparations), g. 66. 43 @-