confirmed that under the Respondent State’s criminal procedure law, discretion is vested in a trial court to determine the admissibility of any evidence supposedly illegally obtained. In further interrogating the matter, the Court of Appeal found that the High Court had exercised proper judicial discretion in admitting the evidence. It thus refused to interfere with the findings of the High Court. 89. Before this Court, the First Applicant has simply restated the same argument that he made before the Court of Appeal. No attempt has been made to demonstrate why or how both the High Court and the Court of Appeal erred in admitting the evidence allegedly illegally obtained. The Applicant has, therefore, simply made a general allegation which has not been substantiated. In the circumstances, the Court dismisses the First Applicant’s allegations of a violation of his right to dignity by reason of the time it took to record his caution statement. 90. The above notwithstanding, the Court takes judicial notice of the fact that all the Applicants were sentenced to suffer the death penalty by hanging. The Court, in the circumstances, reiterates its established jurisprudence that hanging, as method for implementing the death penalty amounts to a violation of the right to dignity under Article 5 of the Charter.36 91. The Court, therefore, finds that the Respondent State violated Article 5 of the Charter by prescribing hanging as a method of implementing the death penalty. E. Alleged violation of the right to a fair trial 92. The Court notes that the Applicants have made a number of allegations falling under the rubric of the right to a fair trial. 36 Rajabu and Others v. Tanzania, ibid, §§ 119-120; Henerico v. Tanzania, ibid, §§ 169-170; Juma v. Tanzania, ibid, §§ 135-136. 24