iv. Publication of the judgment 136. None of the Parties made any submissions in respect of the publication of this judgment. *** 137. The Court considers, however, that for reasons now firmly established in its practice and in the peculiar circumstances of this case, publication of this judgment is necessary. Given the current state of law in the Respondent State, threats to life associated with the mandatory death penalty persist. The Court also notes that it has not received any indication that necessary measures have been taken for the law to be amended and aligned with the Respondent State’s international human rights obligations. The Court thus finds it appropriate to order publication of this judgment within a period of three months from the date of notification. v. Implementation and reporting 138. The justification provided earlier, in respect of the Court’s decision to order publication of the judgment, is equally applicable in respect of implementation and reporting. The Court notes that in its previous judgments on the repeal of the provision on the mandatory death penalty, the Respondent State was directed to implement the decisions within one year of issuance of the same.42 139. The Court observes that, the violation of the right to life by the provision on the mandatory imposition of the death penalty goes beyond the individual case of the Applicant and is systemic in nature. The same applies to the violation of the right to dignity by reason of the method of execution, death by hanging. The Court further notes that its finding in this judgment bears on a supreme right in the Charter, that is, the right to life. 42 Rajabu and Others v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 171; Henerico v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 203. 32