appropriate cannot be categorised with exactitude, the determination of incidents of crimes warranting the imposition of the death penalty must be left to domestic courts to decide on a case-by-case basis. 75. In the instant case, the Court finds that the Applicant was tried, convicted and sentenced in accordance with international human rights standards for an offence that was criminalised under the domestic laws. He was also provided with all the guarantees to ensure a fair trial. As such, there is no reason to question the grounds for the decisions of the domestic courts. Given the preceding, the Court finds that the Applicant’s sentence to death was imposed on a most heinous offence committed by the Applicant. 76. Consequently, the Court finds that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicant’s right to dignity guaranteed under Article 5 of the Charter. C. Alleged violation of the right to a fair trial 77. Under this allegation, the Applicant avers that: i. The Respondent State used circumstantial and repudiated evidence to convict him. ii. He was subjected to violence by the police to force him to record the caution statement. iii. The prosecution did not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. iv. The defence of alibi was not considered by the High Court and the Court of Appeal. 78. The Court observes that the Applicant used similar arguments for the allegations reflected under paragraph 75(i), (ii) and (iii) above, that the Respondent State used circumstantial and repudiated evidence and a caution statement that was forcefully recorded through use of violence to convict him, without proving his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. These three allegations will therefore be considered jointly. Suffice it to note that some of the submissions made by the Parties in this regard are also made 22