56. The Court, therefore, holds that the Respondent State violated the Applicant’s right to life protected under Article 4 of the Charter by imposing the mandatory death penalty on the Applicant. C. Violation of the right to dignity 57. The Court notes that the Applicant was sentenced to death by hanging. In Ally Rajabu and Others v. Tanzania, the Court observed that many methods used to implement the death penalty have the potential of amounting to torture, as well as cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment given the amount of suffering and pain involved. It also held that hanging a person is one of such methods that is inherently degrading.19 The Court recalls its position in the matter of Amini Juma v. Tanzania where it held that the execution of the death penalty by hanging encroaches upon the dignity of a person in respect of the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.20 58. The Court reiterates its position that in accordance with the very rationale for prohibiting methods of execution that amount to torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, the prescription should be that methods of execution must exclude suffering or involve the least suffering possible in cases where the death penalty is permissible.21 59. Having found that the mandatory imposition of the death sentence violates the right to life due to its obligatory nature, the Court holds that, as the method of implementation of that sentence, that is hanging, inevitably encroaches upon dignity in respect of the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.22 19 Rajabu and Others v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, §§ 118-119. Juma v. Tanzania (judgment), supra, § 136. 21 Rajabu and Others v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 118. 22 Ibid, §§ 119-120. 20 14