such as marriage or birth certificates for his dependants or any equivalent proof.74 The Court thus dismisses the prayer of the Applicant in this regard. B. Non-pecuniary reparations i. Amendment of the law to protect life and dignity 138. The Applicant submits that the Court should consider physical and mental well-being, should he remain incarcerated and the difficulty of having a retrial. * 139. The Respondent State did not specifically address this prayer. *** 140. In the present Judgment, the Court has found that the Respondent State violated the Applicant’s right to life and to dignity, guaranteed under Articles 4 and 5 of the Charter, in relation to the mandatory imposition of the death penalty and its execution by hanging. 141. The Court recalls its position in previous judgments dealing with the mandatory imposition of the death penalty where it has ordered the Respondent State to undertake all necessary measures to remove from its Penal Code the provision for the mandatory imposition of the death sentence.75 The Court notes that to date it has issued several identical orders for the removal of the mandatory death penalty which were delivered 74 Abubakari v. Tanzania (reparations), § 60; Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania (reparations) (4 July 2019), 3 AfCLR 287, § 50; Wilfred Onyango Nganyi and 9 others v. United Republic of Tanzania (reparations) (4 July 2019) 3 AfCLR 308, § 71; Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (reparations), § 54; Lucien Ikili Rashidi v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (28 March 2019) 3 AfCLR 13, § 135; and Léon Mugesera v. Republic of Rwanda (judgment) (27 November 2020) 4 AfCLR 834, § 148. 75 Ghati Mwita v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 012/2019, Judgment of 1 December 2022 (merits and reparations), § 166; Msuguri v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 128; Henerico v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 207 and Juma v. Tanzania (judgment), supra, § 170. 38