the case “if an Applicant sufficiently demonstrates or the Court by itself establishes from its findings that the Applicant’s arrest or conviction is based entirely on arbitrary considerations and his continued imprisonment would occasion a miscarriage of justice.”25 91. In the instant case, the Court recalls that it has found that the Respondent State violated the Applicant’s right to dignity through the imposition of the mandatory death sentence. Without minimising the gravity of the violation, the Court considers that the nature of the violation in the instant case does not reveal any circumstance that signifies that the Applicant’s conviction amounts to a miscarriage of justice or an arbitrary decision. The Applicant also failed to elaborate on specific and compelling circumstances to justify the order for his release.26 92. In view of the foregoing, the Court dismisses the Applicant’s prayer for release. iii. Guarantees of non-repetition 93. The Court, having found that the imposition of the mandatory death penalty provided for by its Penal Code contravenes the Charter, orders the Respondent State to take all necessary constitutional and legislative measures, within six (6) months of the notification of the present Judgment, to ensure that this provision of its Penal Code is amended and aligned with the provisions of the Charter so as to eliminate the violations identified herein. Furthermore, the Court orders the Respondent State, within one (1) year of the notification of the present Judgment, to vacate the sentence, remove the Applicant from death-row and rehear his case on sentencing through a procedure that allows judicial discretion. 25 Evarist v. Tanzania (merits), ibid, § 82. Mussa and Mangaya v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 97; Elisamehe v. Tanzania (judgment), supra, § 112; and Evarist v. Tanzania (merits), ibid, § 82. 26 21