the evidence does not reveal any manifest error or a miscarriage of justice to the Applicant. 123. In light of the above, the Court, therefore, dismisses the Applicant’s allegations that his right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty by a competent court or tribunal was violated and finds that the Respondent State has not violated Article 7(1)(b) of the Charter. B. Alleged violation of the right to life 124. The Applicant makes various claims regarding the alleged violation of the right to a fair trial in the course of the proceedings leading to his sentencing rendered the mandatory imposition of the death penalty a violation of the right to life. 125. The Applicant avers that the Respondent State violated his right to life under Article 4 of the Charter by imposing the mandatory death penalty without giving due consideration to the personal circumstances of the offender and the particular offence, including its specific aggravating or attenuating elements. It is the Applicant’s contention that the Respondent State imposed the death penalty based solely on its mandatory nature in municipal law while such sentence was not warranted or compatible with his right to life due to his good character and lack of any prior criminal history. The Applicant further submits that the Respondent State also failed to prove that it imposed the death sentence because the offence was most serious in nature and his case was the rarest of the rare cases. It is the Applicant’s contention that the commutation of his sentence shows that his sentencing did not meet the threshold of seriousness required. 126. Additionally, the Applicant avers that the fact that the Respondent State has now commuted his sentence does not absolve it of this failure in the first instance, which led to his incarceration on death row for eight (8) years. * 35