105. Even though the Respondent State did not directly respond to this allegation, it maintains that the Applicant’s conviction was in accordance with established law and procedure. *** 106. The Court notes that Article 1 of the Charter imposes dual obligation on State Parties: the duty to recognize the rights guaranteed therein and to adopt legislative and other measures to give effect to these rights, duties and freedoms. 107. Accordingly, in assessing whether or not a State has violated Article 1 of the Charter, the Court examines not only the availability of domestic legislative measures taken by the State but also whether the application of those legislative or other measures is in line with the realization of the rights, duties and freedoms enshrined in the Charter, that is, the attainment of the objects and purposes of the Charter. 108. In the present Application, the Court observes that the Applicant alleges a violation of Article 1 of the Charter, primarily citing torture and unfairness in his trial. However, the Court has, found these allegations by the Applicant to be unsubstantiated. The Court has, nevertheless, found that the Respondent State violated Articles 4 and 5 of the Charter by reason of maintaining the mandatory death penalty as well as the prescription of hanging as a method of execution. 109. Given the findings above, the Court holds that the Respondent State violated Article 1 of the Charter. VIII. REPARATIONS 110. The Applicant prays that the Court “allow my case and quash the whole proceedings of the high court and the court of appeal which their trial and 25