statement; not being afforded equal protection of the law; and being convicted while he was a mentally ill person. 55. This Court further observes that both the High Court and Court of Appeal, which is the highest Court of the Respondent State, considered and ruled on the issues of circumstantial evidence, defence of alibi, statement obtained through torture, and trial within a reasonable time. The Respondent State thus had the opportunity to address the alleged human rights breaches before the domestic courts in respect of these issues.18 However, the Court notes that the issues of access to consular assistance and the imposition of the mandatory death sentence on a mentally ill person did not expressly arise in any of the proceedings before domestic courts. 56. Having said that, this Court considers that the allegations of failure to provide consular assistance substantively revolve around fair trial rights namely the rights to an interpreter, to communicate with family members, and to obtain support from one’s country of origin during detention and trial.19 Further, as this Court has previously held, the mental health status of a person accused of murder is an irrelevant factor in respect of sentencing as far as the Respondent State’s criminal law is concerned. This is so because the accused cannot possibly challenge his death sentence on the grounds of his mental illness owing to the fact that the judicial officer is totally deprived of discretion in the sentencing process for the crime of murder, being obligated to impose the death penalty.20 As such, this Court is of the view that both the issue of consular assistance and that of mental health are part of a bundle rights and guarantees bearing on the Respondent State’s 18 Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 60. Nzigiyimana Zabron v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 051/2016, Judgment of 4 June 2024 (merits and reparations), §§ 174-181; Niyonzima Augustine v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 058/2016, Judgment of 13 June 2023, §§ 78-88; Armand Guehi v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (2018) 2 AfCLR 477, §§ 87-96. 20 Ally Rajabu and Others v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (2019) 3 AfCLR 539, §§ 107-112; Ibrahim Yusuf Calist Bonge and Others, ACtHPR, Application No. 036/2016, Judgment of 4 December 2023, §§ 78-81; Ghati Mwita v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 012/2019, Judgment of 1 December 2022, § 122; Amini Juma v. United Republic of Tanzania (judgment) (30 September 2021) 5 AfCLR 431, §§ 124-131. 19 17