001347 124. The Court considers that, as it has held in its earlier judgments, examining an alleged violation of Article 1 of the Charter involves a determination not only of whether the measures adopted by the Respondent State are available but also if these measures were implemented in order to achieve the intended object and purpose of the Charter. As a consequence, whenever a substantive right of the Charter is violated due to the Respondent State's failure to meet these obligations, Article 125. '1 will be found to be violated.s ln the present case, the Court found that the Respondent State violated Article 4 of the Charter by providing for the mandatory imposition of the death penalty in its law. The Court also found a consequential violation of Article 5 of the Charter in respect of the execution of that sentence by hanging. The Court notes that the Respondent State enacted its Penal Code in 1981, that is before becoming a party to the Charter but amended the same in 2002, after the Charter came into force. ln the instant case, fulfilling the obligation under Article 1 of the Charter would have therefore required the Respondent State to remove it from its laws subsequent to the entry into force of the Charter. lt did not do so. 126. The Court consequently finds that the Respondent State violated Article 1 of the Charter in relation to the provision of the mandatory imposition of the death penalty in the Penal Code, and its execution by hanglng. VIII. REPARATIONS 127. Article 27(1) of the Protocol provides that 'lf 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." 36 see Armand Guehi v. Tanzania (Merits and Reparations), SS .l49-1s0. see also Kennedy owino Onyachi and Another v. Tanzama (Merits), SS 158-159; and Alex Thomas v. Tanzania (Merits), S 135. 35