that it imposed the death sentence because the offence was most serious in nature and his case was the rarest of rare cases. 116. The Respondent State did not respond to these allegations. *** 117. Article 4 of the Charter provides that: Human beings are inviolable. Every human being shall be entitled to respect for his life and the integrity of his person. No one may be arbitrarily deprived of this right. 118. The Court notes that the Applicant raises three grounds relating to the alleged violation of the right to life due to the mandatory imposition of the death penalty, namely, the nature of the offence and circumstances of the offender, the lawfulness of the sentence and compliance with guarantees of due process during the trial. The Court considers that these grounds boil down to whether the mandatory imposition of the death penalty constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of the right to life under Article 4 of the Charter. 119. On the arbitrary deprivation of the right to life as protected under Article 4 of the Charter, the Court recalls its consistent position as exemplified in Ally Rajabu and Others v. United Republic of Tanzania. In the said judgment, the Court held that the mandatory imposition of the death sentence is arbitrary and therefore violates the right to life where i) it is not provided by law; ii) it is not meted out by a competent court; and iii) it does not result from proceedings that align with fair trial, namely because it deprives the judicial officer the discretion to consider circumstances peculiar to the offence and the offender.54 54 Ally Rajabu and Others v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (28 November 2019) 3 AfCLR 539, §§ 99-100. 33