account the above stated situation and circumstances while deciding on the sanction to be imposed in cases of murder. The short answer is no. On the issue of discretion, this Court observes that, whatever the outcome of the examination of the circumstances of the case, after entering a conviction, the High Court in the present case would have still had no option but to impose the death penalty as the sole sanction provided for under Article 197 of the Penal Code. Conversely, had the High Court been persuaded by the Applicant’s defence of insanity in the present matter, and the law provided for other sanctions for murder depending on the circumstances pleaded in the case, the factor of judicial discretion would have been met and legality upheld under Article 4 of the Charter. 78. In light of the above, the Court considers that the requirement of judicial discretion was not observed in the present Application, and as a consequence finds that the Respondent State violated the right to life protected under Article 4 of the Charter. B. Alleged violation of the right to a fair trial 79. The Applicant alleges that his rights to a fair trial have been violated in respect of the time he spent in custody awaiting trial; and regarding the lack of provision of legal representation during the process. The Court notes that the Applicant alleges the violation of Article 7 of the Charter, as well as Articles 7, 9, and 14 of the ICCPR. However, in light of its case-law, the Court will examine this allegation solely under Article 7(1) of the Charter which will be interpreted in light of supplementing elaboration found in the ICCPR’s provisions. 20 i. Alleged violation of the right to be tried without undue delay 80. The Applicant alleges that the fact that he was held in pre-trial detention for six (6) years and a half prior to his trial constitutes a violation of his right to 20 Armand Guehi v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (7 December 2018) 2 AfCLR 477, § 73. 21