final judgment is rendered, the courts must apply the law whose provisions are most favourable to the defendant.36 97. The Court notes that in the instant Application, the Second Applicant was convicted for rape and sentenced to 30 years imprisonment by the District Court on 30 November 2000. However, upon appeal to the High Court, on 18 May 2006, his conviction was changed from rape to gang rape and he was sentenced to life imprisonment. The Applicant further appealed to the Court of Appeal and on 5 November 2009, the appeal failed for lack of merit and the judgment of the High Court was upheld including the sentence thereof. 98. The Court also takes cognisance that the newly enacted 2007 Section 131A(3) of the Respondent State’s Penal Code substituted the sentence of life imprisonment with that of corporal punishment for offenders under the age of 18 years as opposed to the previous provision which did not make any distinction in respect of age. 99. The Court further observes that the newly enacted provisions of the Penal Code came into effect after the commission of the offence by the Second Applicant and could therefore not apply to him as per the Interpretation of Laws Act. 100. However, the Court finds that the Respondent State’s Court of Appeal ought to have considered the provisions of the amended Penal Code in line with Article 15(1) of the ICCPR to which the Respondent State is a party and imposed the more lenient sentence of corporal punishment. The Court finds that by upholding the sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the High Court whereas a lighter sentence had been adopted, the Court of Appeal disregarded the legislative change favourable to the accused and continued to apply penalties provided under the repealed law. The Court equally finds 36 Jidic v. Romania (Application no. 45776/16), Judgment, European Court of Human Rights (18 February 2020), para 80. See also, Achour v. France (Application no. 67335/01) Judgment, European Court of Human Rights (29 March 2006), para 5. 25