not remove the violation of the Applicant’s right to life as a result of the mandatory death penalty which was originally imposed on the Applicant and continued to be in effect at the time the Application was filed before this Court. The Court maintains that mandatory death penalty, which removes the discretionary power of the judges is fundamentally incompatible with the fundamental right to life, regardless of any subsequent act of clemency. 157. The Court, therefore, finds that the Respondent State has violated Article 4 of the Charter and Article 6 of the ICCPR, by subjecting the Applicant to a mandatory death penalty. C. Alleged violation of the right to dignity 158. The Applicant contends that the Respondent State has violated his right to be free from torture, cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment by placing him on death row. The death row phenomenon, he asserts, is the term used to describe the anxiety, dread, fear and psychological anguish that often accompanies long term incarceration on death row. He states that the death row phenomenon is a form of torture. 159. He also avers that the prison conditions he endures in Butimba Prison amount to torture contrary to Article 5 of the Charter. In this regard, he mentions that the prison is overcrowded, and prisoners on death row can only interact with other death row prisoners, they are not allowed to take part in sports, classes, training or receive newspapers. 160. Moreover, the Applicant claims that the Respondent State failed to provide him with the necessary medical treatment for his injuries despite the fact that it was obvious that he needed medical help. He avers that the denial to provide him prompt and comprehensive care violated the Charter’s prohibition on cruel and inhumane treatment. 161. The Applicant further states that a sentence of life imprisonment as an alternative to death sentence is not acceptable as it amounts to cruel, 40