colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status”.18 80. The Court further notes that this right is recognised and guaranteed in the Constitution of the Respondent State. The relevant provisions (Articles 12 and 13) of the Constitution enshrine the right in similar form and content as the Charter, including by prohibiting discrimination. 81. The right to equality before the law also requires that “all persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals”.19 82. In the instant case, the Court observes that the national courts examined all the grounds in the Applicant’s appeal and found that they lacked merit. In this regard, the Court finds nothing on record that demonstrates that the Applicant was treated unfairly or subjected to discriminatory treatment in the course of the domestic proceedings. 83. The Court therefore dismisses the Applicant’s allegation that the Respondent State violated Articles 3(1) and (2) of the Charter. 84. Having held that the Respondent State did not violate the rights of the Applicant, the Court nevertheless reiterates its finding in its previous cases20 that the mandatory death penalty is a violation of the right to life among other rights in the Charter and should thus be expunged from the laws of the Respondent State. 18 Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (1966), see also Isiaga v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 84. The Respondent became a State Party to the ICCPR on 11 June 1976. 19 Isiaga v. Tanzania, ibid. 20 Ally Rajabu and Others v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (28 November 2019) 3 AfCLR 539, §§ 104-114. See also, Amini Juma v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 024/2016, Judgment of 30 September 2021, §§ 120-131; Gozbert Henerico v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 056/2016, Judgment of 10 January 2022, § 160.