probabilities leans towards the Applicant’s having suffered deplorable detention conditions. In view of the above, the Court holds that the Applicant suffered deplorable detention conditions, which encroached upon his right to dignity. 168. In the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the Respondent State has violated the Applicant’s right to dignity and not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and treatment guaranteed under Article 5 of the Charter regarding the imposition of the death sentence by hanging, detention on death row notwithstanding the commutation of his sentence and deplorable conditions of detention. D. Alleged violation of the right to consular assistance 169. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent State breached international law and failed to respect fair trial guarantees by not informing him of his right to consular assistance from the Burundian Embassy. He submits that the Respondent State acceded to the VCCR in 1977 hence was obligated under Article 36 of the said instrument to notify him of his rights to consular assistance at the time of his arrest and anytime thereafter. 170. The Applicant avers that in addition to being a minimum guarantee of fair trial in cases involving foreign nationals, the right to consular assistance is a human right in and of itself that has been violated in the present case. He avers that he had already suffered serious prejudice at the hands of the Respondent State as a result of his status as a refugee and living in challenging conditions in the Kanembwa Camp in Tanzania. According to the Applicant, this hardship was compounded by the failure by the Respondent State to provide consular assistance which precluded the possibility of a fair trial and amounted to a violation of his human rights. 171. The Respondent State argues that the right to consular assistance under Article 36(1)(b) of the VCCR is granted subject to request by an accused person. The Respondent State submits that during the domestic 48