144. The Court is cognisant of the Respondent State’s averment that the alleged violation has been rectified by the President who had regard to the right to life by commuting the Applicant’s death sentence to life imprisonment. However, the presidential pardon that led to the commutation in 2020 does not absolve the Respondent State of its responsibility for the commission of the violation – that is the mandatory imposition of the death sentence – as at when it occurred in 2012. Further, the Applicant had actually been on death row for about eight (8) years before the commutation occurred, and the violation has had effects. 145. In view of the above, the Court holds that the mandatory imposition of the death penalty, as provided for in Section 197 of the Respondent State’s Penal Code, and as automatically applied by the High Court in the case of the Applicant, is arbitrary as it does not meet the requirement of fairness set out in Article 4 of the Charter. This is because such imposition of the sentence does not allow the judicial officer to take into account the circumstances of the offender or the offence which is a violation of the right to life. 146. The Court, therefore, finds that the Respondent State has violated the Applicant’s right to life under Article 4 of the Charter by failing to allow the judicial officer to take into account the nature of the offence and the circumstances of the offender in the imposition of the death penalty, notwithstanding the subsequent commutation of the death sentence. C. Alleged violation of the right to dignity 147. The Applicant alleges a violation of his right to dignity under Article 5 of the Charter through the imposition of the death penalty which amounts to cruel and inhuman treatment. Additionally, the Applicant alleges a violation of his dignity on the basis of the death row phenomenon and deplorable prison conditions. 41