66. Given the framing of Article 4 of the Charter, and the broader developments in international law in relation to the death penalty, the Court holds that this type of punishment should exceptionally be reserved only for the most heinous of offences committed in seriously aggravating circumstances. However, since the circumstances for which the death penalty may be appropriate, cannot be categorised with exactitude, the determination of incidents of crimes warranting the imposition of the death penalty must be left to domestic courts to decide on a case-by-case basis. 67. As to the Applicant’s contention that she was sentenced to death in circumstances that do not justify the penalty, the Court recalls that both the High Court and the Court of Appeal established that the Applicant caused the death of one Medadi Aloyce by setting him on fire. The High Court’s findings, which were confirmed by the Court of Appeal, were that the Applicant’s intention to cause death was established by her failure to offer any assistance to Medadi Aloyce “when she saw him burning, shouting or screaming for help” and also “despite having a car, she desisted from assisting by rushing [the victim] to hospital for treatment.” These findings have not been discredited before this Court. 68. In the circumstances, the Court finds that the Applicant has failed to offer cogent argument(s) or evidence to contradict the facts established by the domestic courts in relation to the circumstances of Medadi Aloyce’s death and her role in the death. Given that no patent error(s) by the trial court or even the appellate court has been noted, the Court holds that there is no reason to question the grounds for the decisions of the said courts. 69. Given the preceding, the Court dismisses the Applicant’s allegation that the death penalty was improperly imposed on her without considering the nature of the offence she committed. 20