death penalty has steadily increased as has the number of those with longterm moratoriums on executions. 78. Given the framing of Article 4 of the Charter, and the broader developments in international law in relation to the death penalty, the Court reiterates its position that this type of punishment should, exceptionally, be reserved only for the most heinous of offences committed in seriously aggravating circumstances. However, since the circumstances for which the death penalty may be appropriate, cannot be categorised with exactitude, the determination of incidents of crimes warranting the imposition of the death penalty must be left to domestic courts to decide on a case-by-case basis. 79. On the facts of the present Application, especially given the concurrent findings of the High Court and Court of Appeal, which the Applicants have not impeached, the Court, therefore, does not find any basis for interfering with the final sentence meted on the Applicants. 80. The above notwithstanding, the Court notes that the Applicants were sentenced to death under the mandatory regime for the imposition of the death penalty which is still in force in the Respondent State. As per the Court’s jurisprudence, this mandatory regime for the death penalty, is an affront to the Charter 33 81. In the circumstances, the Court finds that the Respondent State violated the Applicants’ right to life by reason of the imposition of the mandatory death penalty since this amounts to an arbitrary deprivation of the right to life. 33 Ghati Mwita v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No.12/2019, Judgment of 1 December 2022 (merits and reparations), § 122; Juma v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra; Rajabu and Others v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra. 21