116. The Court, therefore, dismisses the Applicant’s allegation and finds that the Respondent State did not violate his right to be heard, protected under Article 7(1) of the Charter. B. Alleged violation of the right to life 117. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent State violated his right to life by convicting and sentencing him to death by hanging. The Applicant claims that this is due to the fact that the Respondent State applies the mandatory death sentence without considering the mitigating factors or the circumstances of his case, thereby depriving the Applicant of his right to individualised sentencing as enshrined in, and required by, international law. 118. The Applicant contends that under Article 4 of the Charter, the Respondent State committed itself to respecting and protecting the right to life and that no one may be arbitrarily deprived of it. 119. It is, therefore, the Applicant’s submission that the mandatory nature of the imposition of the death penalty as provided for in Section 197 of the Penal Code of the Respondent State constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of the right to life as it does not uphold fairness and due process, in addition to not permitting a convicted person to present any kind of mitigating evidence. 120. According to the Applicant, the said Section of the Penal Code does not give the trial court any discretion to take into account specific and crucial circumstances such as the participation of each individual offender in the crime but to impose the death sentence contrary to the letter and spirit of Article 7(1) of the Charter. * 121. The Respondent State asserts that its Court of Appeal had discussed and decided in the case of Mbushuu alias Dominic Mnyaroje and Another v. The Republic [1995] TLR 97 that the imposition of the death penalty is not 29