is, therefore, not warranted, and the Court consequently dismisses the same.49 ii. Guarantees of non-repetition 138. The Applicant does not make specific prayers requesting guarantee of nonrepetition. 139. However, the Court notes that the established violations in the instant Application, notably, the Applicant’s right to bail arise from the Respondent States’ laws, specifically, Section 148(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA). The Court recalls that this law violates Article 6 of the Charter as it removes the discretion of judicial officers to grant or deny bail for persons accused of committing certain crimes, including armed robbery. In so far as this law remains in force, persons in a similar position to the instant Applicant therefore remain at the risk of being denied bail if they are charged with the armed robbery or other offences listed in Section 148 (5) of CPA. 140. In order to guarantee the non-repetition of the established violations, the Court accordingly orders the Respondent State to amend its domestic law in such a manner that judicial officers are provided with the discretion to grant or deny bail to an accusing having taken into consideration the specific circumstances of each case. iii. Publication 141. None of the parties made any submissions in respect of the publication of this Judgment. *** 142. The Court considers, however, that for reasons now firmly established in its practice, and in the peculiar circumstances of this case, publication of this 49 Stephen John Rutakikirwa v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 013/2016, Judgment of 24 March 2022 (merits and reparations), § 88. 34