ffi, no "death sentences" with variable qualifiersla. A single legal regime is applicable. The term "mandatory" does not alter the majority rejection of this sanction by the international community.l5 Moreover, the suppression called for by the judge, in any event, should usefully concern only the death penalty, without further distinction, As the lnternational Court of Justice recalls, "there is a general obligation beyond the texts applicable to specific fields, at the behest of States to prevent the commission by other persons or entities of acts contrary to certain norms of international criminal law".16 lt is an obligation of conformity to the law of the people. Thus in this light, Rajabu and others, reflects a limited reading of Article 4 of the Charter. !1. A still limited reading of Article 4 of the Charter 1SThis reading will be considered before referring to the remarkable wave of abolitionism that has already taken hold of the continent. A. The almost total movement against the death penalty in Africa should be reflected in the protection of human rights 16.The international doctrine against the death penalty was built through progressive denunciation of human rights violations, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment on the one hand and violation of the right to life, on the ra The same was true of the controversial death sentence in time of war. This aspect was discussed when, on 15 December 1980, the IJN General Assembly agreed on the elaboration ofa draft protocol aiming at the abolition ofthe death penalty. It reaffirmed its will in 1981. On 18 December 1982, the UNGA requested the United Nations Commission on Human Rights to establish the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Sub-Committee on the Prevention of Discriminalion and Protection of Minorities therefore had the task ofworking on it. The Sub-Commission's rapporteur, Marc J. Bossuyt, a Belgian expert, introduced the wartime exception, because what he said: "a greater numb€r ofStates will thus be able to become parties to the Second Optional Prolocol". ". See Marc Bossuy, Guide to the Preparatory Works of the Internalional Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Nijhoff, Dor&echt-Boston-Lancaster, 1987, 85 I p. ls The first Inlemalional Covensl.rt on Civil and Polilical Rights of 1966, which entered into force on 23 March 1976, in accordance with the provisions of Article 49, had in this respect the protection ofthe right was updated on the subject. 'lhe Secon d Optiorul Protocol to the International Co1)enant on Civil and Politiml Rights, aiming at the abolition of thc dealh penalty 1l July 1991, in accordance with Article 8. 16 ICI, Reservations to the Convention lbr the Prevention and Punishment ofthe Crime ofGcnocitle of9 December 1948 Advisory Opinion, 28 May 1951, Rec 1951, p. 496; quoted by Pellet 'A) "From one Crime 10 Another - Statc Rcsponsibilitr,' for Violating Human Rights Obligalions" Slzdies in honour of Professor Rafka Ben Achour- l[ouvances du droit, Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung 2015" tome III, pp. 317-340. 7