70. Regarding the second criterion, the Court observes that the High Court is the competent Court in the Respondent State to deal with offences that carry the death penalty. Therefore, the sentence was imposed by a competent court and the second requirement is equally met. 71. In relation to the third criterion, the Court recalls that in Ally Rajabu and Others v. Tanzania, it held that the death penalty can only be imposed in accordance with the norms and standards required in a fair trial.22 In this regard, the Court held that “any penalty must be imposed by a tribunal that is independent in the sense that it retains full discretion in determining matters of facts and law.”23 The Court finds that, by taking away the discretionary power of a judicial officer to impose a sentence on the basis of proportionality and the individual circumstances of a convicted person, the mandatory death sentence falls foul of the requirements of due process in criminal proceedings.24 72. As stressed in its case-law, the mandatory imposition of the death sentence, as applied under the Respondent State’s law is also arbitrary within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter as it deprives the judicial officer of the discretion to consider specific circumstances of particular cases, including whether such cases fall within the classification of the rarest of cases for which a death penalty can be lawfully imposed.25 The Court recalls that, a system of mandatory capital punishment deprives the complainant of the most fundamental right, the right to life, without considering whether this exceptional form of punishment is appropriate in the circumstances of his or her cause.26 73. Overall, therefore, the Applicant has failed to prove that he was convicted on mere suspicions. Nevertheless, his right to life was violated by his 22 Rajabu and Others v. Tanzania, supra, § 98. Ibid, § 107. 24 Ibid, § 110. 25 Dominic Damian v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 048/2026, Judgment of 4 June 2024 (merits and reparations), § 128. 26 Rajabu and Others v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 109 and Juma v. Tanzania (judgment), supra, §§ 124-125. 23 18