154. In light of the above, this Court holds that the Respondent State violated the Applicants right not to be subjected to cruel inhuman and degrading treatment as provided under Article 5 of the Charter through the actions of the police authorities who are agents of the State. ii. Allegation on execution of the death penalty by hanging 155. The Court notes that although this claim was made by the First Applicant, it affects the Second Applicant as well, since he faces the same penalty and method of execution, which the Respondent State does not dispute. As such, the Court will address the claim in relation to both Applicants. 156. They allege that hanging, which is the method of enforcing the death penalty, constitutes cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. They submit that in Ally Rajabu and Others v. United Republic of Tanzania, this Court observed that many methods used to enforce the death penalty potentially amounts to torture, as well as cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, given the suffering inherent thereto. * 157. The Respondent State did not address this violation *** 158. The Court also recalls its position in the matter of Amini Juma v. United Republic of Tanzania where it held that the execution of the death penalty by hanging encroaches upon the dignity of a person in respect of the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.73 159. The Court reiterates its position that in accordance with the very rationale for prohibiting methods of execution that amount to torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, methods of execution must exclude suffering or 73 Juma v. Tanzania (judgment), supra, § 136. 45