Arusha, Tanzania Website: www.african-court.org Telephone: +255-272-510-510 JUDGMENT SUMMARY alleged. However, the Court held that the imposition of a mandatory death sentence, without the possibility of judicial discretion, violates due process. Consequently, it constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of life and a breach of Article 4 of the Charter. The Applicant further contended that the imposition of the death sentence by hanging, together with his prolonged detention on death row, subjected him to dehumanising conditions of near hopelessness, in violation of his right to inherent dignity. The Court held that both the extended period spent on death row and the method of execution by hanging constitute an encroachment upon human dignity. With regard to the alleged violation of the right to be represented by counsel of his choice, the Court found no evidence that the Respondent State hindered counsel’s access to the Applicant, restricted consultation, or denied adequate time and facilities for the preparation of the defence. Therefore, the Court held that the Applicant’s right to be represented by counsel of his choice had not been violated. The Court held that the period of two years and seven months between the Applicant’s arrest and the commencement of trial was not unreasonable. It noted that pre-trial processes including investigations, the recording of witness statements, and submission of the case file to the Directorate of Public Prosecutions, are necessary and inherently time-consuming. The Court further observed that the duration of such processes may vary depending on the workload and scheduling of the relevant judicial authorities. On the allegation that the Applicant did not benefit from the assistance of an interpreter and that he was allowed to call witnesses in his defence, The Court held that the Applicant was represented by counsel and did not request the assistance of an interpreter at any stage of the proceedings. It further noted that the Applicant actively challenged aspects of the prosecution’s evidence, demonstrating his ability to follow the trial. The Court also held, on the basis of the record, that the Applicant was afforded the opportunity to present his defence, including calling witnesses, though he chose 4