92. The above findings notwithstanding, and although none of the Parties made submissions, the Court finds it apposite to reiterate its position on hanging as a method of execution of the death penalty. This is the case because the Applicant was sentenced to suffer death by hanging. As previously reiterated by the Court, the criminal punishment of death by hanging is incompatible with the right to dignity as protected in Charter and the Respondent State remains bound not subject anyone to death by hanging.24 93. The Court finds, therefore, that although the Applicant’s allegations of the violation of his right to dignity due to his being subjected to torture and forced to confess are unfounded, his right to dignity was violated by his being sentenced to death under the mandatory regime as well as being sentenced to suffer death by hanging. 94. The Court, therefore, holds that the Respondent State has violated Article 5 of the Charter. C. Alleged violation of the right to a fair trial 95. The Applicant contends that the Respondent State violated his right to a fair trial due to its reliance on a confession statement that was unlawfully obtained. He also contends that the exhibits accepted by the High Court and Court of Appeal were contrary to sections 38(1), (2) and (3) and 50, 51, and 57 of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Respondent State. * 96. The Respondent State refutes this allegation and contends that the issue of validity and admission of the confession statement was dealt with by the Court of Appeal in rendering its decision. The Respondent State further contends that the Court of Appeal found that the confession was true and properly admitted. 24 Ibid. 22