that hanging a person is one of such methods that is inherently degrading.64 The Court also recalls its position in the matter of Amini Juma v. United Republic of Tanzania where it held that the execution of the death penalty by hanging encroaches upon the dignity of a person in respect of the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.65 138. The Court reiterates its position that in accordance with the very rationale for prohibiting methods of execution that amount to torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, the prescription should be that methods of execution must exclude suffering or involve the least suffering possible in cases where the death penalty is permissible.66 Having found that the mandatory imposition of the death sentence violates the right to life due to its arbitrary nature, the Court holds that, as the method of implementation of that sentence, hanging inevitably encroaches upon dignity in respect of the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. 67 The Court considers that these findings apply to the present Application. 139. Given the above, the Court finds that the Respondent State violated the Applicant’s right to dignity and not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and treatment, guaranteed under Article 5 of the Charter regarding the imposition of the death sentence by hanging. VIII. REPARATIONS 140. In his submission on reparations, the Applicant prays the Court to order the Respondent State to: i. Revoke the death sentence and remove him from death row; ii. Amend its laws to ensure respect for the right to life; 64 Rajabu and Others v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, §§ 118-119. Juma v. Tanzania (judgment), supra, § 136. 66 Rajabu and Others v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 118. 67 Ibid, §§ 119-120. 65 39