the Court finds that the Applicants have failed to prove any illegality in the manner in which the police officers conducted themselves when arresting them and recording their statements. Additionally, the Court finds that the Applicants have not established how the Respondent State treated them in a manner contrary to the guarantees in Article 3 of the Charter. 70. In the circumstances, the Court holds that the Applicants have failed to prove a violation of Article 3 of the Charter and, accordingly, dismisses their allegations. C. Alleged violation of the right to life 71. Apart from indicating, in their Application, that their right to life was violated, the Applicants did not make any submissions highlighting how their right to life was violated. * 72. The Respondent State submits that the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision convicting and sentencing the Applicants to suffer death because the Applicants arbitrarily deprived Aliasger Saggid and F7091 PC Godwin of their right to life and that under Tanzanian law the death penalty is a permissible punishment. In support of its submissions, the Respondent State has referred the Court to Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (hereinafter referred to as “the ICCPR”) and submitted that the “ICCPR show that the death penalty has not been completely prohibited.” 73. The Respondent State also points out that “the Applicants were convicted of murder which is a serious crime, they were convicted by a competent court, they appealed to the Court of Appeal of Tanzania, the highest Court within the justice system which upheld their conviction.” It thus submits that there has been no violation of the Applicants’ rights under Article 4 of the Charter. *** 19