On merits v. Holds that the Respondent State has not violated the Applicants’ right to non-discrimination under Article 2 of the Charter; vi. Holds that the Respondent State has not violated the Applicants’ right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law under Article 3 of the Charter; vii. Holds that the Respondent State has not violated the Applicants’ right to a fair trial under Article 7 of the Charter; viii. Holds that the Respondent State has not violated the Applicants’ right to express and disseminate opinions under Article 9 of the Charter; By a majority of eight (8) Judges for; and two (2) Judges against; ix. Holds that the Respondent State has violated the Applicants’ right to life under Article 4 of the Charter in relation to the provision for the mandatory death penalty in its Penal Code; x. Holds that the Respondent State has violated the Applicants’ right to dignity under Article 5 of the Charter by prescribing hanging as a method of implementing the death penalty; xi. Holds that the Respondent State has violated Article 1 of the Charter by reason of its failure to undertake legislative and other measures to recognise and give effect to the rights in the Charter. Unanimously On reparations Pecuniary reparations xii. Dismisses the Applicants’ prayer for damages for material prejudice; 39