that imposition of the harsher penalty constitutes an infringement of Article 15(1) of ICCPR considering the general rule on settling conflicts between successive criminal statutes. 101. Further, the Court recalls its jurisprudence that corporal punishment constitutes a violation of the right to dignity protected under Article 5 of the Charter.37 As such, corporal punishment introduced by the Respondent State as a lenient sentence in substitution of life imprisonment does not conform to the Charter. 102. The Court, therefore, finds that the Respondent State has violated Article 15(1) of the ICCPR with regard to the imposition of the sentence of life imprisonment by failing to impose a lighter sentence as provided for in the amended law. Further, the Respondent State has violated Article 5 of the Charter for introducing corporal punishment, which is inherently inhuman and degrading, as an alternative sentence to life imprisonment for offenders under 18 years. ii. On the propriety of the Second Applicant’s sentencing considering his age 103. The Court considers that, although it is not expressly pleaded in the present Application, the age factor should also be brought to bear in considering the propriety of the Second Applicant’s sentencing. 104. In this regard, the Court takes note of Article 17(3) of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (ACRWC),38 which provides that: 37 Yassini Rashid Maige v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 018/2017, Judgment of 5 September 2023 (merits and reparations), § 136-143. See also, Doebbler v. Sudan, Communication No. 236/2000, 2003 AHRLR 153 (ACHPR 2003), § 42. 38 Ratified by the Respondent State on 16 March 2003. 26