204. In the instant case, the Court has not found that the violations established in this Judgment had any bearing on the Applicant’s conviction. As such, it dismisses the Applicant’s request to quash his conviction. 205. Furthermore, the Court recalls that the death penalty has already been commuted to a life sentence. As a result, this particular prayer has been overtaken by events, rendering it moot. 206. In the same vein, the Court holds that the Applicant’s request for an order requiring the Respondent State to conduct resentencing hearings and consider mitigating circumstances does not stand. Therefore, it also dismisses this prayer. iii. Publication 207. None of the parties made any submissions in respect of the publication of this Judgment. *** 208. 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 and dignity associated with the mandatory death penalty persist in the Respondent State. There is also no indication as to whether measures are being taken for the laws in this regard to be amended and aligned with the Respondent State’s international human rights obligations, with the result that the guarantees provided in the Charter are still not certain for rights-holders. The Court thus finds it appropriate to order publication of this Judgment. 52