132. In the matter at hand, the Court holds that the mandatory imposition of the death penalty, as provided for in Section 197 of the Respondent State’s Penal Code, and as automatically applied by the High Court in the case of the Applicant, is arbitrary as it does not meet the requirement of fairness set out in Article 4 of the Charter in violation of the right to life. 133. The Court, therefore, finds that the Respondent State violated the Applicant’s right to life under Article 4 of the Charter owing to the arbitrary imposition of the death penalty as the judicial officer lacked discretion to take into account the nature of the offence and the circumstances of the offender in the mandatory imposition of the death penalty. C. Alleged violation of the right to dignity 134. The Applicant alleged a violation of his right to dignity under Article 5 of the Charter through the imposition of the death penalty which amounts to cruel and inhuman treatment. 135. The Respondent State did not respond to these allegations. *** 136. The Court notes that Article 5 of the Charter provides that: Every individual shall have the right to the respect of the dignity inherent in a human being and to the recognition of his legal status. All forms of exploitation and degradation of man, particularly slavery, slave trade, torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and treatment shall be prohibited. 137. In the matter of Ally Rajabu and Others v. United Republic of Tanzania, this Court stated that many methods used to implement the death penalty have the potential of amounting to torture, as well as cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment given the suffering inherent thereto. This Court held 38