125. In the case of Ghati Mwita v. United Republic of Tanzania, this Court held that the death penalty should exceptionally “be reserved only for the most heinous of offences committed in seriously aggravating circumstances”.55 126. The Court further takes note of international human rights case-law on the seriousness and gravity of an offence that warrants the imposition of the mandatory death penalty. For example, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) has held that intentional and unlawful deprivation of another’s life can and must be recognized and addressed under various factors that correspond with the wide range of seriousness of the surrounding facts, taking into account the different facets that can come into play such as a special relationship between the offender and the victim, motives for the behaviour, the circumstances under which the crime is committed and the means employed by the offender. The IACHR held that the approach allows for a graduated assessment of the seriousness of the offence, so that it will bear an appropriate relation to the graduated levels of gravity of the applicable punishment.56 127. In S v. Makwanyane, the South African Constitutional Court summarised the position as follows: “[T]he death sentence should only be imposed in the most exceptional cases, where there is no reasonable prospect of reformation and the objects of punishment would not be properly achieved by any other sentence”.57 Further, in Mitcham and Others v. Director of Public Prosecution, the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal held that “the burden of proof at the sentencing hearing lies on the prosecution and the standard of proof shall be beyond reasonable doubt.”58 55 Mwita v. Tanzania (judgment), supra, § 66. Boyce et al. v. Barbados, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of 20 November 2007. Series C No. 169, paras. 46-63 and Hilaire, Constantine, and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 106. 57 S v. Makwanyane, Case No. CCT/3/94, Judgement of 6 June 1995, para 46. 58 Mitcham & Ors v. DPP, Crim. App. Nos 10-12 of 2002, Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal, para 2. 56 35