B. Non-pecuniary reparations i. Amendment of the law to protect life and dignity 73. In the present Judgment, the Court has found that the Respondent State violated the Applicant’s right to life and to dignity, guaranteed under Articles 4 and 5 of the Charter, in relation to the mandatory imposition of the death penalty and its execution by hanging. 74. The Court, therefore, orders the Respondent State to take all necessary measures to remove, within six months of the notification of this Judgment, the provision for the mandatory imposition of the death sentence from its laws.30 75. Regarding the Court’s finding that the method of execution of the death penalty by hanging is inherently degrading,31 the Court orders the Respondent State to undertake all necessary measures to remove “hanging” from its laws as the method of execution of the death sentence, within six months of the notification of this Judgment.32 ii. Release and rehearing 76. Regarding the Applicants prayer for release from prison, the Court recalls its jurisprudence that “[t]he Court can only order a release if an Applicant sufficiently demonstrates or if the Court by itself establishes from its findings that the Applicant’s arrest or conviction is based entirely on arbitrary considerations and that his continued detention would occasion a miscarriage of justice.”33 In the present Application, the Court, however, 30 Rajabu and Others v. Tanzania, supra, § 163; Juma v. Tanzania, supra, § 170; Henerico v. Tanzania, supra, § 207; Ghati Mwita v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application no. 012/2019 Judgment of 1 December 2022 (merits and reparations), § 166. 31 Rajabu and Others v. Tanzania, supra, § 118. 32 Chrizant John v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application no. 049/2016, Judgment of 7 November 2023 (merits and reparations), § 155. 33 Henerico v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 202; Mgosi Mwita Makungu v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (7 December 2018) 2 AfCLR 550, § 84; Minani Evarist v. United Republic of 18