001348 where the death penalty is permissible, methods of execution must exclude suffering or involve the least suffering possible.3s 1 19. The Court observes that hanging a person is one of such methods and it is therefore inherently degrading. Furthermore, having found that the mandatory imposition of the death sentence violates the right to life due to its arbitrary nature, this Court finds that, as the method of implementation of that sentence, hanging inevitably encroaches upon dignity in respect of the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. 12O. As a consequence of the above, the Court finds that the Respondent State has violated Article 5 of the Charter. D. AIIeged violation of Article 121 . 1 of the Charter The Applicants allege that for having not amended its Penal Code to remove the mandatory imposition of the death penalty, the Respondent State has not met its obligations under Article 1 of the Charter. 122. The Respondent State did not respond to the Applicants' submissions on this allegation. However, in its report on implementation of the Court's Order for Provisional Measures, the Respondent State avers that the provision for the mandatory imposition of the death penalty by its courts cannot be considered as a violation of the Applicants' rights because that sentence is not prohibited under international law. 123. Article 1 of the Charter provides: "The Member States of the Organisation of African Unity, parties to the present Charter shall recognise the rights, duties and freedoms enshrined in the Charter and shall undertake to adopt legislative or other measures to give effect to them". 3s See Chlaf Ng, op. cit., 16.2 34 e-