133. The Respondent State cites Article 27 of the Charter and contends that by killing the deceased, the Applicant instead neglected his duty to respect the right to life and dignity of the deceased. According to the Respondent State, the Applicant brutally terminated the life of the deceased, therefore it is he who failed to recognise the rights and duties enshrined in the Charter. Finally, the Respondent State argues that, in any case, the Applicant has not demonstrated how his right to be treated with respect and dignity was violated. *** 134. The Court observes that the imposition of the death penalty must be treated as an exceptional measure, warranting a thorough examination of all available aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The sanctity of the right to life demands that the death penalty, should not be considered as a default option among criminal punishments.37 However, if it is to be considered, it must be strictly limited to cases involving the most serious crimes, and all doubts regarding the culpability of the accused must be rigorously addressed and ruled out. This ensures that the gravity of the death penalty is commensurate with the gravity of the crime and that individuals who lack the volitive or cognitive power are not subjected to it. 135. In this context, the Court notes that if an accused person raises concerns about his mental health or if there are circumstances that cast doubt on the mental capacity of the accused, it is essential for national courts to thoroughly assess this matter before proceeding with the trial, conviction, or sentencing. The proper evaluation of an individual’s mental health is crucial at the appropriate stage of the legal proceedings, depending on when the issue comes to the attention of the courts. This guarantees that justice is served fairly and that individuals with potential mental health challenges are 37 Ghati Mwita v. United Republic of Tanzania, Application No. 012/2019, Judgment of 1 December 2022 (merits), § 66. 34