inhumane and degrading treatment. Life imprisonment, he emphasises violates the inherent right to dignity protected under Article 5 of the Charter and Article 10 of the ICCPR. Thus, he argues that the Court should order the Respondent State not to impose the sentence of life imprisonment as an alternative remedy to the violations to which he has endured. *** 162. The Respondent State does not exhaustively respond to these allegations, rather it generally points out that throughout the trial, it recognised and respected the dignity of the Applicant, who was treated in accordance with the law during his trials in the High Court and before the Court of Appeal. The Respondent State also emphasised that the punishment imposed on the Applicant was justified in view of the seriousness of the crime of which he was convicted. 163. As regards the Applicant’s assertion of withholding of medical treatment for his injuries, the Respondent State raises objections and insists that the claim must be substantiated through concrete evidence. According to the Respondent State, the Applicant was never subjected to any form of mistreatment by the police and that his physical injuries were self-inflicted as he attempted suicide subsequent to committing the crime. In addition, the Respondent State claims that during pretrial, the Applicant was accorded with Police Medical Examination Form (PF 3) for his treatments on the alleged serious injuries. However, the Applicant did not reveal his injuries to the Justice of Peace or indicate that he needed medical treatment. *** 164. The Court notes that Article 5 of the Charter provides as follows: Every individual shall have the right to the respect of the dignity inherent in a human being and to the recognition of [their] legal status. All forms of exploitation and degradation of [human beings], particularly 41