132. Similarly, as per its jurisprudence,39 this Court has held that a finding of violation of the right to dignity owing to the use of hanging as a method of execution of the death penalty warranted an order that the said method be removed from the laws of the Respondent State. Considering its findings in this Judgment, the Court orders the Respondent State to take all necessary measures to amend its laws and remove “hanging” from its laws as the method of execution of the death sentence, within six months of the notification of the present Judgment. iii. Rehearing 133. Although neither of the Parties made submissions specifically addressing the need for a rehearing, the Court considers this to be a necessary consequence given its earlier findings. 134. The Court reaffirms its earlier findings that the violations in this case did not impact on the Applicant’s guilt and conviction. The said findings affect only the sentencing and to the extent of the mandatory nature of the penalty. The Court finds, therefore, that a remedy is warranted only as to the extent of the mandatory death penalty.40 135. In the circumstances, the Court orders the Respondent State to take all necessary measures for the rehearing of the case on the sentencing of the Applicant through a process that does not allow a mandatory imposition of the death penalty, while upholding the full discretion of the judicial officer. 41 39 Jeshi v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), §§ 111, 112, 118; Romward William v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 030/2016, Judgment of 13 February 2024 (merits and reparations), § 94. 40 Habyalimana Augustino and Muburu Abdulkarim v United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 015/2016, Judgment of 3 September 2024 (merits and reparations), §§ 240-241. 41 Chrizant John v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 049/2016, Judgment of 7 November 2023 (merits and reparations), § 150. 31