* 125. The Respondent State maintains that the Applicant’s prayers be dismissed. *** 126. Regarding the Applicant’s prayer for quashing his conviction, the Court recalls that it can only make such an order in compelling circumstances. 34 Specifically, the Court notes that its finding of violations in the present Application only pertains to the non-compliance with the Charter of the mandatory death penalty as well as the means chosen for executing convicts. The Court considers that the nature of the violations does not reveal any circumstances that signifies that the Applicant’s imprisonment amounts to a miscarriage of justice or an arbitrary decision. The Applicant also failed to elaborate on specific and compelling circumstances to justify the order for quashing the domestic courts’ findings. 127. The Applicant’s prayer is, therefore, not warranted, and the Court consequently dismisses it.35 128. The above notwithstanding, the Court recalls that it has held that orders such as vacating the death sentence are to be determined on a case-by case basis having due consideration mainly to proportionality between the measure sought and the extent of the violation established.36 In the instant Application, given that the provision for the mandatory imposition of the death sentence in the Respondent State’s legal framework violates the right to life protected in Article 4 of the charter, the Court, therefore, orders the Respondent State to vacate the Applicant’s death penalty and remove him from death row. 34 Kalebi Elisamehe v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (26 June 2020) 4 AfCLR 265, § 112. 35 Stephen John Rutakikirwa v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 013/2016, Judgment of 24 March 2022 (merits and reparations), § 88. 36 Rajabu and others v Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 156. 29