jurisprudence, a system of mandatory capital punishment deprives the complainant of the most fundamental right, the right to life, without considering whether this exceptional form of punishment is appropriate in the circumstances of his or her cause.60 142. The Court also takes cognisance of international jurisprudence with regards to the consideration of the circumstances of the offender in imposing the mandatory death penalty. In Dial and Others v. Trinidad and Tobago, the IACHR held that when certain laws make it mandatory to impose a death sentence automatically, this does not permit the trial courts to consider the particular circumstances of the accused including their criminal record. 61 The High Court of Malawi in Kafantayeni and Others v. Attorney General stated that, in a capital case, the right to a fair trial requires that offenders be permitted to present evidence of mitigation relevant to the individual circumstances either of the offence or of the offender.62 143. In the instant Application, the Court notes that the Applicant contends that the Respondent State imposed the death penalty without considering his circumstances with regard to good character and lack of any prior criminal history. The Court is of the view that as a general principle, and by natural justice and fairness, imposition of sentences, let alone such serious and grave sentence as the death penalty, should always involve the possibility for mitigation. The Court considers that the elements of good character and lack of any prior criminal history invoked by the Applicant in the present Application falls within the category of circumstances that apply in mitigating sentences. Therefore, by not taking them into consideration, the proceedings leading to the mandatory imposition of the death sentence in the present case did not abide by the requirement of fairness. 60 Rajabu and Others v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), ibid, § 109 and Juma v. Tanzania (judgment), supra, §§ 124-125. 61 Dial et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago, Judgment of November 21, 2022 (merits and reparations) paragraph 48. 62 Kafantayeni and others v. Attorney General, Constitutional Case No.12 of 2005 (unreported). See also, Attorney General v. Susan Kigula and 417 Others, Constitutional Appeal No. 03 of 2006 (Supreme Court of Uganda), §§ 63-64; Mutiso v. Republic, Crim. App. No. 17 of 2008 at 8, 24, 35 (July 30, 2010) (Kenya Ct. App.). 40