only to the extent of the mandatory nature of the penalty. The Court holds that a remedy is warranted in that respect. 160. The Court, therefore, orders the Respondent State to take all necessary measures for the rehearing of the case on the sentencing of the Applicant through a process that does not allow a mandatory imposition of the death penalty, while upholding the full discretion of the judicial officer. iii. Restitution and release 161. The Applicant prays for the Court to order the Respondent State to revoke the death sentence imposed on him and remove him from death row. 162. The Applicant also prays the Court to order the Respondent State to release him from prison. He submits that a retrial would be fraught with practical difficulties given the passage of time since the alleged offence, therefore the suitable remedy would be his release from prison. 163. On the prayer that the sentence be revoked, the Court has held that orders such as vacating the death sentence are to be determined on a case-bycase basis having due consideration mainly to proportionality between the measure sought and the extent of the violation established.78 164. In the present case, the Court has found that the provision for the mandatory imposition of the death sentence in the Respondent State’s legal framework violates the right to life protected in Article 4 of the charter. The Court, therefore, orders the Respondent State to vacate the death penalty in the case of the Applicant and remove him from death row pending the rehearing ordered above. 78 Rajabu and Others v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 156. 45