000{s$ State that by becoming a party to the First Optional Protocol to the ICCPR it had recognised the competence of the HRC to determine whether there had been a violation of the ICCPR and to provide an effective and enforceable remedy when a violation is established.'? 11. The Respondent State has not implemented the Views of the HRC. The Applicant remains on death row and his death sentence has not been commuted. 12. Since the Respondent State has not acted on the Views of the HRC, the Applicant decided to apply to this Court for the protection of his rights. The Applicant, while acknowledging the fact thal there is a long-standing de facfo moratorium on carrying out executions in the Respondent State, argues that this has no bearing on the merits of this Application. B. Alleged violations 13. The Applicant alleges that the imposition of the mandatory sentence of death, without consideration of the individual circumstances of the offence or the offender, violates the following rights: a) The right to life under Article 4 of the Charter; b) The prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 5 of the Charter; c) The right to a fair trial under Article 7 of the Charter; d) The right to life under Article 6(1), the right to protection from inhuman punishment under Article 7, the right to a fair trial under Article 14(1) and the right to a review of a sentence under Article 14(5) of the ICCPR; and zCommunication No. 211712012 Dexter Eddie Johnson v Ghana, 27 March 2014. (hereinafter referred to as "Dexter Johnson v Ghana" (HRC)). 4