124. The Court notes that the Applicant has not made specific submissions nor provided evidence that he was discriminated against, in violation of Article 2 of the Charter.33 125. In these circumstances, the Court finds that there is no basis to find a violation and therefore holds that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicant’s right to non-discrimination protected under Article 2 of the Charter. C. Alleged violation of the right not to be subjected to inhumane and degrading punishment 126. The Applicant also claims that the prison sentence of thirty (30) years meted on him was patently excessive and constituted an inhumane and degrading punishment in violation of Article 5 of the Charter. * 127. The Respondent State disputes this allegation and submits that when sentencing a convict for a criminal offence it is the mandatory requirement that the Court must provide a sentence by relying on the provisions of the Penal Code and that of the Minimum Sentence Act. 128. In the matter at hand, the Respondent State maintains that the Court at the District Level and at the two levels of appeal had fairly considered all the requirements of the law and all the mitigation factors. It is for this reason that the Respondent State claims that this allegation lacks merit and that the allegation should be dismissed. *** 33 Sijaona Chacha Machera v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 035/2017 Judgment of 22 September 2022 (merits), § 82. 29