159. The justification provided earlier, in respect of the Court’s decision to order publication of the judgement, is equally applicable in respect of implementation and reporting. The Court notes that in its previous judgments directing the repeal of the provision on the mandatory death penalty, the Respondent State was directed to implement the decisions within one year of issuance of the same.56 160. The Court observes that, in the present case, 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 Application and is systemic in nature. The same applies to the violation of the right to dignity by reason of the method of execution. The Court further notes that its finding in this Judgment bears on a supreme right in the Charter, that is, the right to life. 161. In view of this, therefore, the Court deems it necessary to order the Respondent State to periodically report on the implementation of this Judgment in accordance with Article 30 of the Protocol. The report should detail the steps taken by the Respondent State to remove the impugned provision from its Penal Code. 162. The Court recalls that it has ordered the Respondent State to repeal the mandatory death penalty and the deadlines that the Court set have since lapsed. In view of this fact, the Court still considers that the orders are warranted both as an individual protective measure and as a general restatement of the obligation and urgency behoving on the Respondent State to remove the mandatory death penalty and provide alternatives thereto. 163. The Court holds, therefore, that the Respondent State is under an obligation to report on the steps taken to implement this Judgment within six months from the date of notification of this Judgment. 56 Rajabu and Others v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 171; Henerico v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 203. 38