judgment, the Court orders the setting aside of the sentence of 12 strokes of the cane, meted on the Applicants. For the avoidance of doubt, the setting aside of this sentence does not have any other bearing on the other sentences rendered by the domestic courts in the Applicants’ case. ii. Amendment of law to ensure respect for dignity 94. The Applicants prayed the Court to order the Respondent to amend its laws to remove caning as a form of punishment since it violates Article 5 of the Charter. * 95. The Respondent State reiterated its prayer that the Application be dismissed in its entirety. *** 96. As earlier pointed out in this Judgment, the question of the compatibility of corporal punishment with the Charter, in the Respondent State, was previously dealt with in Yassin Rashid Maige v. Tanzania40 as well as in Kabalabala Kadumbagula and Another v Tanzania.41 In these decisions, the Court found that the Respondent State’s Penal Code, for endorsing corporal punishment, contravenes Article 5 of the Charter. Consequently, the Respondent State was ordered to repeal the provisions relating to corporal punishment in its Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Act and the Corporal Punishment Act.42 97. Specifically, in Kabalabala Kadumbagula and Another v. Tanzania, a decision which was delivered on 4 June 2024, the Respondent State was given a period of two years within which to take steps to amend its criminal laws and align them with its international human rights obligations. In this connection, the Court observes that the period given to the Respondent 40 Supra, § 143. 41 Supra, § 101. 42 Ibid, §§ 170-173. 24