notes that the established violations does not impact on the Applicant’s guilt and conviction. Further, the sentence is affected only to the extent of the mandatory nature of the penalty. Given the foregoing, the Court holds that an order for release of the Applicant is not warranted. Consequently, the prayer is dismissed. 77. Having dismissed the prayer for release, and in light of its findings and orders relating to the mandatory imposition of the death sentence, this Court considers that an alternative measure is warranted to give effect to the said findings and orders. The Court therefore orders the Respondent State to take all necessary measures, within one year of the notification of this Judgment, for the rehearing of the case on the sentencing of the Applicant through a procedure that does not allow the mandatory imposition of the death sentence, and which upholds the discretion of the judicial officer. 34 iii. Publication of the Judgment 78. The Court considers that, in line with its established jurisprudence, 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 associated with the mandatory death penalty persist in the Respondent State. The Court has not received any indication that necessary measures have been taken for the law to be amended and aligned with the Respondent State’s international human rights obligations. The Court thus finds it appropriate to order publication of this judgment within a period of three months from the date of notification. Tanzania (merits and reparations) (21 September 2018) 2 AfCLR 402, § 82 and Juma v. Tanzania (judgment), supra, § 165. 34 Rajabu and Others v. Tanzania, supra, § 171 (xvi); Juma v. Tanzania, supra, § 174 (xvii); Henerico v. Tanzania, supra, § 217 (xvi); Mwita v. Tanzania, supra, § 184 (xviii). 19