case against the Applicant, the Court thus finds that the death sentence imposed on the Applicant was meted by a competent court. 78. In relation to compliance with due process, the Court finds that the mandatory nature of the death penalty, as provided for under Section 197 of the Respondent State’s Penal Code, leaves the national courts with no choice but to sentence a convict to death, resulting in arbitrary deprivation of life.24 By taking away the discretionary power of a judge to impose a sentence on the basis of proportionality and the personal situation of a convicted person, the mandatory death sentence does not comply with the requirements of due process in criminal proceedings. The Court considers that if the domestic courts of the Respondent State were vested with discretion to determine the sentencing of persons found culpable of murder, the High Court, by way of illustration, could have legitimately considered all the factors that the Applicant has raised before this Court in possible mitigation of her sentence. 79. In the circumstances, the Court holds that the death sentence, as prescribed by section 197 of the Respondent State’s Penal Code, does not pass the third criterion for assessing arbitrariness of the sentence. It further holds, in line with its jurisprudence, that the mandatory death penalty constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of the right to life under Article 4 of the Charter.25 80. The Court thus finds that the Respondent State violated Article 4 of the Charter by sentencing the Applicant to death under a regime that did not provide her an opportunity to mitigate her sentence upon conviction. B. Alleged violation of the right to dignity 81. The Applicant submits that, by imposing the death penalty, the Respondent State violated her right to dignity because “she suffers from depression and 24 Amini Juma v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), § 130; Ally Rajabu and others v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), § 109; Gozbert Henerico v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), § 148. 25 Ally Rajabu and others v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), § 114. 23