92. In relation to the first criterion, the Court notes that the death sentence is provided for in Section 197 of the Respondent State’s Penal Code.34 The criterion is thus met in the present case. 93. Regarding the second criterion, the Court observes that the Applicants’ contention is not that the courts of the Respondent State lacked jurisdiction to conduct the processes that led to the imposition of the death penalty on them. The Court further notes that the Applicants contend rather, that, the High Court could only impose the death sentence because it is provided for in the law as the mandatory sentence for murder. In any event, this Court observes that the High Court is the competent Court in the Respondent State to deal with offences that carry a death penalty. It has both appellate and original jurisdiction to adjudicate on criminal and civil matters as provided for under Section 3(2)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 107(1)(a) of the Respondent State’s Constitution. In the circumstances, the sentence was imposed by a competent court. It follows that this second requirement is equally met. 94. In relation to the third criterion, the Court recalls that in Ally Rajabu and Others v. United Republic of Tanzania, it held that the death penalty can only be imposed in accordance with the norms and standards required in a fair trial.35 In this regard, the Court held that “any penalty must be imposed by a tribunal that is independent in the sense that it retains full discretion in determining matters of fact and law.”36 The Court finds that, by taking away the discretionary power of a judicial officer to impose a sentence on the basis of proportionality and the individual circumstances of a convicted person, the mandatory death sentence falls foul of the requirements of due process in criminal proceedings.37 “A person convicted of murder shall be sentenced to death”. Rajabu and Others v. Tanzania, ibid, § 98. 36 Ibid, § 107. 37 Ibid, § 110. 34 35 25