79. Given the above, the Court finds that the Respondent State violated the Applicant’s right to dignity and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and treatment guaranteed under Article 5 of the Charter regarding the imposition of the death sentence by hanging. VIII. REPARATIONS 80. Article 27(1) of the Protocol provides that “If the Court finds that there has been violation of a human or peoples’ rights it shall make appropriate orders to remedy the violation, including the payment of fair compensation or reparation.” 81. In his Application, the Applicant prays the Court to “restore justice where it was overlooked, quash both the conviction and the sentence imposed on him, set him at liberty and, finally, to grant any other order that it may deem fit and just to grant in the circumstances of the complainant.” 82. Having found that the Respondent State has not violated any rights alleged by the Applicant, the Court dismisses the Applicant’s prayers for reparations. 83. The Court recalls, however, that it has held that the Respondent State violated the Applicant’s right to life and to dignity, guaranteed under Articles 4 and 5 of the Charter, in relation to the mandatory imposition of the death penalty by hanging. 84. The Court, therefore, orders the Respondent State to revoke the death sentence imposed on the Applicant and remove him from death row pending the rehearing of his sentence.29 29 Damian v Tanzania, supra, §§ 163-164. 20