proceedings were not conducted in line with international standards.93 The Court notes that as it has previously held, the mandatory imposition of the death penalty encroaches on judicial discretion in respect of sentencing, therefore it requires a rehearing on sentence as an adequate remedy. 94 207. The Court considers that, while the Respondent State has commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, the Applicant’s right to alternative sentencing under judicial discretion remains violated pursuant to the provisions of Article 4 of the Charter. This is because the commutation derived from an executive order. As such, a rehearing on sentencing remains necessary to uphold the judicial discretion provided under the Charter. The prayer for rehearing in respect of the Applicant is, therefore, granted. iv. Publication of the Judgment 208. Though the Applicant did not make any request for publication of this judgment, pursuant to Article 27 of the Protocol and its inherent powers, the Court will consider this measure. In its previous judgments, the Court has suo motu ordered the publication of its judgments after taking into account the circumstances of the cases.95 209. The Court observes that, in the present Application, the violation of the right to life by the provision on the mandatory imposition of the death penalty goes beyond the individual case of the Applicant. The Court notes that threats to life associated with the mandatory imposition of the death penalty remain alive in the Respondent State, with no sign as to whether measures are being taken for the law to be amended. In view of the above, the Court orders the Respondent State to publish this Judgment. 93 Rajabu and Others v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 155. Ibid, § 158 and Msuguri v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 131. 95 Mwita v. Tanzania (judgment), ibid, §§ 175-176; Rajabu and Others v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 165 and Henerico v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, §§ 208-210. 94 58