that the Applicants suffered some moral prejudice. On the facts of this case, and in the exercise of its equitable jurisdiction, the Court awards each of the Applicants the sum of Tanzanian Shillings Three Hundred Thousand (TZS 300 000) as reparations for moral prejudice. B. Non-pecuniary reparations 133. The Applicants pray the Court to redress all the wrongs caused to them by the Respondent State. * 134. The Respondent State prays that the Applicants’ prayers be “not granted and be dismissed in their entirety.” i. Guarantees of non-repetition 135. In light of the violations that the Court has established, the Court recalls that, in previous judgments dealing with the mandatory death penalty involving the same Respondent State, it had ordered that the provisions in its Penal Code, providing for the mandatory death penalty and hanging as a method of execution, be amended to align with the country’s international obligations.49 The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that four (4) years have passed since the first such judgment was issued, but that the Respondent State has not, as at the date of the present Judgment, communicated to the Court any steps that it has taken to comply with the said judgments. 136. As a result of the Respondent State’s position, on the Court’s earlier decisions, persons in a similar position to the Applicants remain at the risk of being tried and sentenced under the mandatory regime and also to suffer hanging as a means of executing the death penalty. 49 Gozbert Henerico v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No.056/2016, Judgment of 10 January 2022 (merits and reparations), § 207; Juma v. Tanzania, supra, § 170. 35