confessions and exhibits. The Court will thus proceed to examine these allegations in line with the applicable provisions of the Charter. 72. The Court notes that while the Applicant has cited Articles 4 and 5 of the Charter, he has not made any specific submissions about the propriety of the mandatory death sentence in human rights law. Nevertheless, and as the Court has previously held, instances involving the mandatory imposition of the death sentence in the legal framework of the Respondent State constitute a violation of both the right to life under Article 4 of the Charter and the right to the protection of dignity protected by Article 5 of the Charter.17 73. Given that the mandatory death sentence has been imposed on the Applicant, the Court deems it necessary to examine suo motu the implications of this punishment and its mode of execution in the field of human rights in the Respondent State, regardless of the conclusions of the two Parties on these issues. 74. The Court will, therefore, consider, in turn, the violation of Article 4 of the Charter in relation to the mandatory imposition of the death sentence; Article 5 of the Charter owing to the alleged torture suffered by the Applicant and also in relation to the execution of the mandatory death penalty by hanging; Article 7 of the Charter owing to the alleged admission of illegally obtained evidence; and Article 1 of the Charter. A. Alleged violation of the right to life 75. The Applicant simply asserted that the Respondent State has “violated my rights against article 4…” He made no attempt to provide any details as regards his precise grievances in respect of the alleged violation. 17 Ally Rajabu and Others v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (28 November 2019) 3 AfCLR 539, §§ 104-114; Amini Juma v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (30 September 2021) 5 AfCLR 431, §§ 120-131. 17