the person charged at the time of the offence did not understand what he was doing and “[t]he person charged was by reason of intoxication insane, temporary or otherwise, at the time of such act or omission”. 64. It is the submission of the Respondent State that having critically examined the evidence and circumstances of the matter, the sentencing court was satisfied that the Applicant knew what he was doing and knew that doing so was wrong. According to the Respondent State, the conduct of the Applicant before, during and after the killings was not the conduct of a person who was temporally insane and did not understand what he was doing. The Respondent State further submits that the Applicant, on both occasions when he committed the killings, ordered the bodies to be thrown into the river, asked his accomplices to stir the water in order to dissolve the victims’ blood and warned the said accomplices not to reveal the events to anyone otherwise they would suffer the same fate as the deceased persons. The Respondent State avers that these actions of the Applicant show that he was sane before, during and after the killings and intended to destroy all evidence. 65. The Respondent State, therefore, prays this Court to find that the Applicant’s allegations are misconceived, void of merit and dismiss them accordingly. *** 66. The issue for consideration is whether by sentencing the Applicant to death without taking into account special circumstances of his case, the sentencing court violated the right to life protected under Article 4 of the Charter. 67. Article 4 of the Charter provides : Human beings are inviolable. Every human being shall be entitled to respect for his life and the integrity of his person. No one may be arbitrarily deprived of this right. 17