assessment.43 These criteria include determining whether there exists a legal basis for the death sentence, whether the death sentence was pronounced by a competent court, and whether due process was observed throughout the proceedings that resulted in the imposition of the death sentence.44 148. With regard to the first criterion, the Court notes that the death sentence is provided for in Section 197 of the Penal Code of the Respondent State. This requirement is, therefore, met. 149. Regarding the second criterion, the Court notes that the Applicant’s contention is not centred on the lack of jurisdiction of the courts in the Respondent State to hear the case that resulted in the death sentence. Instead, the Applicant argues that the High Court could only impose the death penalty as it is the sole punishment prescribed by law for murder, thereby depriving the judge of any discretionary power to consider alternative sentences.45 150. From the record, and this has not been contested by the Applicant, it is clear that the domestic courts did not act beyond their jurisdiction or exceed their authority in handling the case against the Applicant. The Court, therefore, concludes that the death sentence was imposed by a competent court. 151. Regarding compliance with due process, the Court observes that the mandatory nature of the death penalty, as outlined in Section 197 of the Respondent State’s Penal Code, significantly restricts the sentencing 43 Mwita v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 75. ACHPR, International Pen and Others (on behalf of Saro-Wiwa) v. Nigeria, Communications 137/94 139/94, 154/96, 161/97 (2000) AHRLR 212 (ACHPR 1998), §§ 1-10 and, § 103; Forum of Conscience v. Sierra Leone, Communication 223/98 (2000) 293 (ACHPR 2000), § 20.; See, Article 6(2), ICCPR; and Eversley Thompson v. St. Vincent & the Grenadines, Comm. No. 806/1998, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C70IO/806/1998 (2000) (U.N.H.C.R.), 8.2; See also Rajabu and Others v. Tanzania (judgment), supra, § 104. 45 Rajabu and Others v. Tanzania, supra, § 106; Gozbert Henerico v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 004/2015, Judgment of 10 January 2022, § 147. 44 38