001337 163. ln the instant case, the Court found that the Respondent State violated Article 4 of the Charter by providing for the mandatory imposition of the death penalty in its Penal Code, and Article 5 by providing for its execution by hanging. The Court finds that its earlier order that the case on the sentencing of the Applicants should be heard afresh amounts to a systemic pronouncement since it will inevitably require a change in the law. The Court therefore makes the consequential order that the Respondent State undertakes all necessary measures to repeal from its Penal Code the provision for the mandatory imposition of the death sentence. llt. 164. Publication of the Judgment The Court notes that the Applicants did not request for the publication of this Judgment. 165. Having said that, the Court considers that it can order publication of its decisions suo motu where the circumstances of the case so require.sT 166. The Court observes that, in the present case, the violation of the right to life by provision of the mandatory imposition of the death penalty as earlier established is beyond the individual case of the Applicants and systemic in nature. The Court further notes that its finding in this Judgment bears on a supreme right in the Charter, that is the right to life. 167. ln the circumstances, the Court deems it proper to make an order suo motu for publication of the Judgment. The Court therefore orders that this Judgment be published on the websites of the Judiciary and the Ministry for Constitutional and Legal Affairs, and remains accessible for at least one (1) year after the date of publication. 57 see Armand Guehi v. Tanzania, op. clf., S 194; Reverend christopher R. Mtikila v. Tanzania (Reparations), $ 45 and 46(5); and Norbeft Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (Reparations), g 98. 45 @-.