which has already been settled by the Parties in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, the Constitutive Act of the African Union, or the provisions of the Charter. The Application therefore meets this condition. 58. As a consequence of the foregoing, the Court finds that the Application fulfils all the admissibility requirements set out under Article 56 of the Charter, as restated in Rule 50 of the Rules, and accordingly finds it admissible. VII. MERITS 59. The Applicant alleges the violation of his following rights: i. Right to life protected under Article 4 of the Charter imposing the mandatory death penalty; ii. Rights to a fair trial, to be tried without undue delay and to have effective representation protected under Article 7(1) of the Charter owing to the delay of proceedings in domestic courts, the lack of competent and experience counsel, and lack of adequate resources to counsel; and iii. Rights to dignity, and to be free from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment protected under Article 5 of the Charter for the provision of execution of the death sentence by hanging, detention in the death row, and lengthy detention before trial. A. Alleged violation of the right to life 60. The Applicant avers that the mandatory death penalty violates the right to life as it violates the right to an individualized sentencing process given that it does not consider circumstances peculiar to both the offender and commission of the offence such as mental impairments as is the case of the Applicant. The Applicant alleges that due to the mandatory sentencing scheme implemented in the Respondent State, the court that sentenced him to death did not have an opportunity to consider crucial mitigating evidence, 15