214. This Court considers that the fact that the domestic courts were deprived of the discretion in respect of sentencing did not allow them to examine the very possibility of the Applicants in the present Application having suffered from mental illnesses during the domestic proceedings. As such, the imposition of the death sentence on the Applicants in the present Application is in violation of the right to life under Article 4 of the Charter for the same reason as has consistently been stated by this Court in all other similar instances. This is because the criminal law of the Respondent State did not allow the Applicants in this case to raise any issue concerning their mental health as the judicial officer would have dismissed the said issues. 215. In the circumstances, this Court finds that the Respondent State violated the Applicants right to life as guaranteed under Article 4 of the Charter owing to the domestic courts not been afforded discretion to consider the mental health of the Applicants in imposing the death sentence. VIII. REPARATIONS 216. Both Applicants, pray the Court to: i. Order the Respondent State to release them from prison; ii. Vacate the conviction and sentence of the death penalty imposed on them and accordingly to remove them from death row, however, the Second Applicant in the alternative specifically prays that the mandatory death penalty be commuted; iii. Amend the law to remove the mandatory death penalty for the statues; iv. Compensate them for the loss of earnings from their livelihood; and v. Pay appropriate reparations for all the suffering and harm caused. * 217. On its part, the Respondent State prays the Court to dismiss the Applicant’s prayers for reparations in their entirety on the grounds that they are 61