173. The Court notes that the Respondent State has not provided any information on the implementation of its judgments in any of the earlier cases where it was ordered to repeal the mandatory death penalty and the deadlines that the Court set have since lapsed. In view of this fact, the Court still considers that the orders are warranted both as an individual protective measure, and a general restatement of the obligation and urgency behoving on the Respondent State to scrap the mandatory death penalty and provide alternatives thereto. The Court holds, therefore, that the Respondent State is under an obligation to report on the steps taken to implement this judgment within six (6) months from the date of notification of this judgment. IX. COSTS 174. The Parties did not make any submissions regarding the costs of the Application. *** 175. The Court notes that Rule 32(2) of its Rules provides that “unless otherwise decided by the Court, each party shall bear its own costs, if any.” 176. Noting that there is no reason for it to depart from that provision in the instant case, the Court decides that each Party shall bear its own costs. X. OPERATIVE PART 177. For these reasons: THE COURT, Unanimously 48