of the rarest of cases for which a death penalty can be lawfully imposed.19 The Court recalls that a system of mandatory capital punishment deprives the complainant of the most fundamental right, the right to life, without considering whether this exceptional form of punishment is appropriate in the circumstances of his or her cause.20 81. Given the above, the Court holds that the Applicant’s right to life, under Article 4 of the Charter, was violated by reason of being subjected to the mandatory imposition of the death penalty upon his conviction. The Court, therefore, reiterates its call to the Respondent State to expunge the mandatory nature of the death penalty from its law. B. Alleged violation of the right to dignity 82. In relation to the alleged violation of the right to dignity, the Applicant contends that the Respondent State violated his right under Article 5 of the Charter by subjecting him to torture and forcing him to confess publicly. * 83. The Respondent State refutes the allegation and contends that this claim is a new allegation. It asserts that neither the High Court nor the Court of Appeal were given the chance to hear and determine this alleged violation and thus the Applicant is precluded from bringing the issue before this Court. 84. The Respondent State further contends that, since this is a new allegation, there is no credible evidence on record that could be used to decide on the matter. It also argues that given the longevity of the elapsed time, any sort of potential evidence that is to be used by the Applicant, might have gone 19 Dominic Damian v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 048/2026, Judgment of 4 June 2024 (merits and reparations), § 128. 20 Rajabu and Others v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 109 and Juma v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, §§ 124-125. 19