194. The Court observes that the Applicants made similar claims under the right
to a fair trial, which have already been addressed under this tittle head. The
Court does not therefore deem it necessary to examine the present claims
any further.
E. Alleged violation of the right to life
195. Under this allegation, the Applicants make the following claims:
i.
Imposition of the mandatory death penalty without considering the
circumstances; and
ii.
Imposition of the death penalty on a person suffering from mental illness.
196. The Court will examine these claims in turn.
i.
Allegation on the mandatory imposition of the death penalty
197. The Applicants submit that the mandatory imposition of the death sentence
usurped the judicial officer’s discretion to impose a sentence and denied
him the opportunity to consider standards of fairness. They contend that
there was no evidence of extreme violence or cruelty and neither was there
a motive for the killing. Furthermore, they state that there were neither
multiple victims nor any evidence that the victim was vulnerable and that the
evidence was so tenuous that a court would not conclude that they had
committed a crime capable of falling into such a heinous category.
198. Relying on the jurisprudence of several domestic and international regional
courts,94 the Applicants assert that the death penalty should be imposed
94
Moise v. The Queen, (unreported), Crim, App. No. 8 of 2003, Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal, §
17; Mitcham & Ors v. DPP, Crim. App. Nos 10-12 of 2002; Pipersburgh v. R, Councilins v. Mawkanyane,
Case No. CCT/3/94, judgment of 6 June 1995, § 46, Trimmingham v. The Queen [2009] UKPC 25, §
21, Communication No. 390/1990, Luboto v. Zambia, view adopted on 31 Oct. 995, § 7.2;
Communication No. 1132/2002, Chisanga v. Zambia, view adopted on 18 Oct. 2005, § 7.4;
Communication 1421/2005, Larranaga v. Philippines, views adopted on 24 July 2005, § 7.2;
Communication 1077/2002, Carpo v. Philippines adopted on 6 May 2002, § 8.3, Boyce v. Barbados
(Inter-American Court of Human Rights judgment of November 20, 2007, §§ 50-53), Kigula & Others v.
55