record shows that there was any objection raised before the national courts relating to whether these counsels carried out their duties to the detriment of the Applicant’s right to defence.36 99. The Court, therefore, finds that the Respondent State did not violate Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter. 100. Having held that the Respondent State did not violate the rights of the Applicant, the Court notes, from the record, that the Applicant was mandatorily sentenced to death. The Court, in the circumstances reiterates its finding in its previous cases37 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. VIII. REPARATIONS 101. The Court notes that Article 27(1) of the Protocol stipulates that “[i]f the Court finds that there has been violation of a human or peoples’ right, it shall make appropriate orders to remedy the violation, including the payment of fair compensation or reparation.” 102. The Applicant prays for an order that he be paid compensation for the period of his incarceration to be assessed on the basis of “the national ratio of a citizen’s income per year”. He also prays the Court to order his release to repair the prejudice he suffered due to the Respondent State not affording him the counsel of his choice. 103. The Respondent State did not respond to the Applicant’s submissions on reparations despite being served with the said submissions on 20 August 36 Evodius Rutechura v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 004/2016, Judgment of 26 February 2021 (merits and reparations), § 75. 37 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. 26