74. The Court notes that the grounds that the Applicant raises in support of her allegation of the violation of Article 4 of the Charter are based on the fact that the mandatory death penalty constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of the right to life by virtue of the fact that it constrains the discretionary power of a trial court. The Court observes that the specific grounds invoked by the Applicant relate to the reasons for which she believes the domestic courts ought to have passed an individuated sentence on her. 75. In assessing the arbitrariness of the Applicant’s death sentence, the Court recalls its established jurisprudence in relation to the criteria for such assessment, namely, whether or not there is a legal basis for the death sentence; whether the death sentence was meted out by a competent court and whether due process was observed in the proceedings that culminated in the imposition of a death sentence.22 76. With regard to the first criterion, the Court notes that the death sentence is provided for in Section 197 of the Penal Code of the Respondent State. This requirement is, therefore, met. 77. In relation to the second criterion, the Court observes that the Applicant’s contention is not based on the fact that the courts of the Respondent State lacked jurisdiction to hear the case that led to her being sentenced to death but on the fact that the High Court could only impose the death sentence because it is the only one provided for in law for murder, thus denying the judge the discretionary power to pronounce any other sentence.23 Given that no grounds have been led by the Applicant to establish that domestic courts acted in want or even in excess of their jurisdiction in determining the 22 International Pen and Others (on behalf of Saro-Wiwa) v. Nigeria, Communications 137/94 139/94, 154/96, 161/97 (2000) AHRLR 212 (ACHPR 1998), §§ 1-10 and, § 103; Forum of Conscience v. Sierra Leone, Communication 223/98 (2000) 293 (ACHPR 2000), § 20.; See, Article 6(2), ICCPR; and Eversley Thompson v. St. Vincent & the Grenadines, Comm. No. 806/1998, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C70IO/806/1998 (2000) (U.N.H.C.R.), 8.2; See also Ally Rajabu and Others v. Tanzania, (merits and reparations), § 104. 23 Ally Rajabu and Others v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), § 106; Gozbert Henerico v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 004/2015, Judgment of 10 January 2022 (merits and reparations), § 147. 22