provided with the necessary support to safeguard their rights throughout the legal process.38 136. In the instant case, the Court notes that there is nothing on record indicating that the Applicant or his Counsel raised his mental health status, at the preliminary hearing, during the trial proceedings or as a ground of appeal before the Court of Appeal. It is also clear that in the domestic proceedings, the Applicant did not specifically contend that he committed the crime out of superstitious belief as he has claimed before this Court. 137. The Court also notes that the Applicant did not explicitly assert that his mental incompetence, at the time of the crime or during the trial, was apparent to the trial court. While the report of the Applicant cutting off his private parts right after the incident may indicate some mental distress, it does not conclusively suggest that he committed the crime due to mental illness. 138. The Court has given due consideration to the affidavits and expert opinions submitted by the Applicant. However, the Court has not found any evidence to warrant faulting the domestic courts regarding the lack of consideration of the Applicant’s alleged mental health at the time of trial, conviction and sentence.39 139. The Court, therefore, concludes that the Respondent State did not violate Article 4 of the Charter with regard to the Applicant’s contention of his conviction without considering his mental health issues. ii. Imposition of the mandatory death penalty 140. The Applicant contends that Article 4 of the Charter and Article 6 of the ICCPR establish the inviolability of human beings, affirming the entitlement 38 Marthine Christian Msuguri v. United Republic of Tanzania, Application No. 052/2016, Judgment of 1 December 2022 (merits), §§ 72-77. 39 Mwita v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 85. 35