52. The above notwithstanding, the Court can evaluate whether the manner in which domestic proceedings were conducted, including the assessment of evidence, to determine if the same was done in consonance with international human rights standards. 53. From the record, this Court observes that the High Court exhaustively considered the evidence presented in the Applicant’s case and its findings were upheld by the Court of Appeal. It considered, for example, the fact that the Applicant’s co-accused Lugwisha, who later died in custody, informed the police authorities when they raided his homestead that the remaining stolen marked cattle were kept there by the Applicant; the fact that four (4) prosecution witnesses, corroborated the evidence of the other witnesses in identifying the marked and stolen cattle and the fact that the Applicant failed to provide a satisfactory account of how he came to be in possession of the marked cattle. The only logical and reasonable conclusion, therefore, corresponded with the Applicant’s guilt. The Court further notes that the Applicant has failed to demonstrate how the Court of Appeal’s evaluation of the evidence revealed manifest errors requiring its intervention. 54. In light of the foregoing, the Court dismisses this allegation and finds that the Respondent State did not violate Article 7(1) of the Charter in relation to the manner in which the trial court arrived at the conviction of the Applicant. B. Violation of the right to life 55. It emerges from the record that the Applicant was mandatorily sentenced to death under a law that does not allow the Judicial Officer discretion to impose a different punishment. The Court, in these circumstances, reiterates its jurisprudence that the imposition of the mandatory death penalty is a violation of the right to life under Article 4 of the Charter. 18 18 Ally Rajabu and Others v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (28 November 2019) 3 AfCLR 539, §§ 104-114; Amini Juma v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application no. 024/2016, Judgement of 30 September 2021 (merits and reparations), §§ 120-131. 13