mandatory death penalty breaches the right to life and therefore does not comport with the legal obligations of the Respondent State. 114. Having established the anguish caused to the Applicant by his lengthy detention, this Court does not deem it necessary to consider the death row claim any further only to link the ensuing harm with the “ever present shadow of death”.32 115. The Court also finds that a thorough examination of the claim on deplorable conditions of confinement is not warranted as it intrinsically seeks to buttress the central claim that the Applicant indeed suffered and may still be suffering inhuman and degrading treatment. 116. Given the above, the Court finds that the Respondent State has violated the right not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment protected by Article 5 of the Charter in respect of being kept in the death row. VIII. REPARATIONS 117. The Applicant prays the Court to: i. Grant him moral damages; ii. Vacate the death sentence and grant him a new trial that comports with the fair trial guarantees in the Charter; iii. In the alternative, direct the Respondent State to set aside the death sentence and grant him a resentencing hearing; iv. Order the Respondent State to amend its law to ensure the respect for life; and v. Order the Respondent State to take appropriate measures to remedy the violations within a reasonable time, and inform the Court within six (6) months of the judgment of the measures taken to implement the latter 32 See Soering v. United Kingdom, ECHR, Judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A, Vol. 161, § 42. 31