0013s ti preliminary hearing and if the case is to be adjourned due to the absence of witnesses or any other cause, nothing in this section shall be construed as requiring the same judge or magistrate who held the preliminary hearing under this section to preside at the trial." 90. The court is of the view that it is self-evident, from section 192 of the Tanzanian Criminal Procedure Act, that the law does not make it compulsory for the preliminary hearing and trial to be presided over by the same judge. The Applicants' submission in this respect does not hold and is therefore dismissed. 9'1 . As a consequence of the above, the Court finds that the Respondent State has not violated the Applicants' right protected under Article 7(1)(a) of the charter in respect of the hearing of the preliminary and trial proceedings. B. Alleged violation of the right to Iife the Respondent state has violated Articles I and 4 of the charter by failing to amend section 197 of the penal code of ranzania, 92. The Applicants allege that which provides for the mandatory impositon of the death penalty in cases of murder. lt is their contention that, had the Respondent state adopted legislative and other measures stated under Article 1 of the Charter, the High Court and court of Appeal would have presumably used varied reasoning and arrived at different decisions. ln relation to the same allegation, the Applicants also aver that the Respondent state failed to recognise that "human rights are inviolable, and that human beings, the applicants herein inclusive, are entitled to respect for their life and the integrity of person as guaranteed under Article 4 of the African Charter...'. 93.The Respondent state did not respond to the Applicants'submission on this point. However, in its response to the order for provisional Measures issued in the present Application, the Respondent state avers that the provision for the death sentence in its laws is in line with international norms, which do not prohibit the imposition of the sentence. 26