measures to repeal the provision for the mandatory death penalty in its Penal Code. ii. Restoration of liberty 199. The Applicant prays the Court to quash his conviction and sentence and restore his liberty. He prays the Court to set aside the death sentence imposed on them and order his release from prison. 200. The Applicant submits that the restoration of liberty is the most feasible way in which adequate reparations could be said to have been granted, given the harrowing circumstances of imprisonment he has faced. 201. Alternatively, as a measure of restitution, he prays that the Court order the Respondent State to reopen resentencing hearings and consider mitigating circumstances with respect to the Applicant. 202. The Respondent State prays that the Court to dismiss the Applicant’s prayer for release as he was serving a lawful sentence imposed on him in accordance with its laws. It also maintains that that ordering the release of the Applicant is not within the mandate of the Court. *** 203. Regarding the Applicant’s prayer to quash his conviction, set aside death sentence, and order his release, the Court recalls that it is not an appellate body in relation to decisions of national courts,64 but this does not preclude it from examining proceedings of the said courts to determine whether they were conducted in accordance with the standards set out in the Charter or any other human rights instruments ratified by the State concerned.65 64 Ernest Francis Mtingwi v. Republic of Malawi (jurisdiction) (15 March 2013) 1 AfCLR 190, § 14. Mtingwi v. Malawi, ibid; Kennedy Ivan v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (28 March 2019) 3 AfCLR 48, § 26; Armand Guehi v. Tanzania (merits and reparations) (7 December 2018) 2 AfCLR 477, § 33; Nguza Viking (Babu Seya) and Johnson Nguza (Papi Kocha) v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (23 March 2018) 2 AfCLR 287, § 35. 65 51