204. In relation to the first criterion, namely, that the death sentence should be provided by law, the Court notes that the punishment is provided for in Section 197 of the Respondent State’s Penal Code CAP 16. RE.2002, as the mandatory punishment for the offence of murder. 102 The said condition is therefore met. 205. Regarding the second criterion, on whether the sentence was passed by a competent Court, this Court observes that the High Court is the competent Court in the Respondent State to deal with offences that carry a death penalty. It has both appellate and original powers on civil and criminal matters as provided for under Section 3(2)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 107(1)(a) of the Tanzania Constitution. As such, the sentence was imposed by a competent court. It follows that this second requirement is equally met. 206. In relation to the third criterion, on whether due process was followed in the proceedings leading to the pronouncement of the death sentence, the Court notes that the Applicants were not presumed guilty before the trial, were represented jointly by Counsel even though they complain that they should have been represented by different counsel to avoid any conflict of interest. However, as arises from the record and expounded on earlier in the present judgment, when dealing with issues of fair trial, the specific circumstances of the Applicants were not taken into account during the sentencing. 207. The Court has previously held in Ally Rajabu and Others v. United Republic of Tanzania, that the death penalty as imposed by the courts of the Respondent State in instances of murder, such as is the case in the present Application, does not abide by due process as it does not allow the judicial officer discretion to consider alternative forms of punishment.103 102 103 “A person convicted of murder shall be sentenced to death.” Rajabu and Others v. Tanzania, supra, § 110. 58