This ensures that the gravity of the death penalty is commensurate with the gravity of the crime. 74. The Court further recalls its previous jurisprudence, where it held that “while Article 4 of the Charter provides for the inviolability of life, it contemplates deprivation thereof as long as such is not done arbitrarily. By implication, the death sentence is permissible as an exception to the right to life under Article 4 as long as it is not imposed arbitrarily.”26 75. The Court further notes the Respondent State’s reference to Section 197 of its Penal Code, which states as follows: “A person convicted of murder shall be sentenced to death” (emphasis added), meaning the mandatory imposition of the death penalty. 76. The Court recalls its well-established jurisprudence where it found that the mandatory imposition of the death penalty as provided for in Section 197 of the Respondent State’s Penal Code constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of the right to life and, therefore, violates Article 4 of the Charter.27 77. In the present matter, the Court does not find any cogent reason to distinguish this case from its previous decisions. 78. The Court, therefore, holds that the Respondent State has violated Article 4 of the Charter due to the mandatory nature of the imposition of the death penalty on the Applicant, as provided for in Section 197 of its Penal Code, which constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of the right to life. 26 Ally Rajabu and others v. Tanzania (merits and reparations) (28 November 2019) 3 AfCLR 539 § 98. Ally Rajabu and others v. Tanzania (merits and reparations) (28 November 2019) 3 AfCLR 539 § 114; Amini Juma v. Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application no. 024/2016 Judgment of 30 September 2021 (merits and reparations), § 130; Gozbert Henerico v. Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application no. 056/2016 Judgment of 10 January 2022 (merits and reparations) § 150; Ghati Mwita v. Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application no. 012/2019 Judgment of 1 December 2022 (merits and reparations), § 80. 27 20