95. In the instant case, the Court finds that the mandatory imposition of the death penalty, as provided for in Section 197 of the Respondent State’s Penal Code, and as automatically applied by the High Court in the case of the Applicants, does not uphold fairness and due process. This amounts to an arbitrary deprivation of the right to life. 96. As previously stated by the Court,38 the mandatory death penalty is a violation of the right to life and should thus be expunged from the laws of the Respondent State. 39 97. In relation to the mandatory death penalty as applied in the Respondent State, the Court finds it apposite to note that the trial judge in the Applicants’ trial was aware of the limitations imposed on him by Section 197 of the Respondent State’s Penal Code. He expressed himself thus: … the only punishment for murder is death sentence. This kind of sentence has been subject of criticism by many people including lawyers, human rights groups etc. I do not need to say much about it but as the country is in the process of having a new constitution, I think it is the right time to think of an alternative punishment for those who commit offences which attract the sentence of death. 98. The Court notes that the sentiments expressed by the trial judge speak to the same fundamental problems that it has found with the mandatory regime for the death penalty in the Respondent State. 99. For the reasons stated above, the Court,finds that the Respondent State violated Article 4 of the Charter by imposing the mandatory death penalty on the Applicants. 38 Ibid, §§ 104-114. See also, Amini Juma v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 024/2016, Judgment of 30 September 2021, §§ 120-131; Henerico v. Tanzania, supra, § 160. 39 Ghati Mwita v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations), ACtHPR, Application No. 012/2019, Judgment of 1 December 2022, § 65. 26