Witnesses and that the Prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court will consider this allegation. 45. Furthermore, the Court notes from the record that the Applicant was mandatorily sentenced to death by hanging under a law that the Court has previously held, does not allow the judicial officer any discretion in violation of Articles 4 and 5 of the Charter.9 The Court will therefore consider whether the circumstances of the present Application requires findings similar to those in its case-law on the issues of violation of the right to life, protected under Article 4 of the Charter; and violation of the right to dignity, guaranteed in Article 5 of the Charter. A. Alleged violation of the right to have one’s cause heard 46. The Applicant contends that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were inconsistent and contradicted each other, and thus, lacked the credibility to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 47. He avers that his conviction was based on hearsay and false testimonies. Furthermore, that the Court of Appeal noted the contradictions in the prosecution witness statements but did not reverse the decision of the High Court. Consequently, he submits that he was denied justice in the national courts. *** 48. Article 7(1) of the Charter provides that: “[e]very individual shall have the right to have his cause heard…”. 49. The Court notes in line with its established jurisprudence “… that “a fair trial requires that the imposition of a sentence in a criminal offence, and in particular a heavy prison sentence, should be based on strong and credible 9 See also Deogratius Nicolaus Jeshi v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 017/2016, Judgment of 13 February 2024 (Merits and Reparations), §§ 109-112. 11