132. The Court notes that it has earlier found that the Respondent State violated the Applicants’ right to life and right to dignity on account of which they suffered moral prejudice. Accordingly, the Applicants are entitled to reparations for the moral prejudice suffered. 133. The Court also notes that the disruption of Applicants’ life plan is related to their incarceration. However, since the Court has not found the Applicant’s conviction to be unlawful, it cannot award any reparations for harm suffered as a result of the incarceration per se. 134. Equally, the Court notes that the Applicants do not prove their relationship to the alleged indirect victims. In the circumstances, the Court dismisses the claim for reparations for moral prejudice suffered by alleged indirect victims. 135. ln view of all of the above, and taking into account other similar cases involving the Respondent State, the Court awards each of the Applicants the sum of Three Hundred Thousand Shillings (TZS 300,000) as moral damages. B. Non pecuniary reparations 136. The Applicants pray the Court to set “aside the death sentence imposed on the Applicants and [to order] their removal from death row”. They also pray the Court to restore their liberty and to order the Respondent State to amend its law to ensure the respect for the right to life. i. Amendment of laws 137. The Applicants pray that the Respondent State be ordered to amend its laws to ensure respect for the right to life under Article 4 of the Charter by repealing the mandatory death sentence for the offence of murder. * 34