128. The Court observes that, as stressed in its earlier mentioned case-law, the mandatory imposition of the death sentence as applied under the Respondent State’s law is arbitrary within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter as it deprives the judicial officer of the discretion to consider specific circumstances of particular cases, including whether such cases fall within the classification of the rarest of cases for which a death penalty can be lawfully imposed. As it emerges from the submissions of the Parties in the present Application, the trial courts did not have the leeway to examine whether the seriousness of the offence warranted the sentence that was meted out. Given the above, the Court holds that the Respondent State violated the Applicant’s right to life by failing to take into account the nature of the offence. 129. As far as the situation of the offender is concerned, this Court recalls that, as it held in the above cited Rajabu judgment, the mandatory imposition of the death penalty, as provided for in Section 197 of the Penal Code of the Respondent State, falls short of the requirements of due process as it takes away the discretionary power of a judicial officer to impose a sentence on the basis of the individual circumstances of a convicted person.59 In Marthine Christian Msuguri v. United Republic of Tanzania, the Court examined whether the Applicant had suffered post traumatic disorder prior to the commission of the offence and whether he suffered from insanity at the time of commission.60 The Court recalls that, as established in its jurisprudence, a system of mandatory capital punishment deprives the complainant of the most fundamental right, the right to life, without considering whether this exceptional form of punishment is appropriate in the circumstances of his or her cause.61 59 Rajabu and Others v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 110. Msuguri v. Tanzania (judgment), supra, §§ 66-72. 61 Rajabu and Others v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), ibid, § 109 and Juma v. Tanzania (judgment), supra, §§ 124-125. 60 36