as the second best measure taking into account passage of time since the alleged offence was committed.” * 142. The Respondent State did not file any submissions on this point. *** 143. Regarding the Applicants’ prayer to be set free, the Court recalls that it can only make such order in compelling circumstances. In the present Application, the Court notes that its findings only pertain to the sentencing and do not, therefore, affect the conviction of the Applicants. The prayer for release is therefore not warranted. Accordingly,the Court dismisses the Applicants’ prayer to be released from prison. 144. However, the Court considers that, while the Applicants’ prayer for release is not warranted, they were sentenced to death under a regime which did not accord the domestic courts discretion on the sentence. Given that the Court has found the mandatory sentencing regime to be inconsistent with the Charter, it is necessary for it to make an order dealing with this sentencing regime. 145. Consequently, the Court orders the Respondent State to take all necessary measures for the rehearing of the case on the sentencing of the Applicants through a process that does not allow a mandatory imposition of the death penalty, while upholding the full discretion of the judicial officer. iii. Publication 146. None of the parties made any submissions in respect of the publication of this judgment. *** 36