127. The Respondent State submits that the imposition of the death penalty as punishment for murder is in accordance with its Penal Code and other regional and international human rights instruments. The Respondent State argues that under Article 6(2) of the ICCPR, the death penalty may be imposed for the most serious crimes and that under Section 196 of its Penal Code, crimes that attract death penalty are of a serious nature. It is the contention of the Respondent State that the offence committed by the Applicant was of a serious nature and attracted the imposition of the death penalty. 128. The Respondent State further argues that while the Applicant was on death row, the sentence was commuted to life imprisonment by the President which rectified the alleged violation by the imposition of the alternative sentence. The Respondent State submits that the request by the Applicant for a lesser sentence is unfounded in national law since the offence of murder only attracts the death penalty or life imprisonment. *** 129. 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. 130. The Court notes that the Applicant has raised three grounds relating to the alleged violation of the right to life due to the mandatory imposition of the death penalty, that is, 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. 36