It, therefore, submits that this is an afterthought and that his argument is not substantiated. *** 107. The Court reiterates, as earlier stated, that the burden of proof of a human rights violation lies with the Applicant. In the instant Application, the Applicant alleges that the Respondent State violated his rights to equality before the law and equal protection of the law protected under Article 3(1) and (2) of the Charter, without expounding the basis thereof. 108. In these circumstances, the Court finds that the Applicant has failed to prove the alleged violation and holds that the Respondent State did not violate his rights to equality before the law and equal protection of the law protected under Article 3 of the Charter. D. Violation of the right to life 109. The Applicant did not make any submissions on the right to life. However, the Court notes from the record that the Applicant was mandatorily sentenced to death under a law that does not allow the judicial officer any discretion. The Court, in these circumstances, reiterates its finding in its previous decisions that the imposition of the mandatory death penalty is a violation of the right to life under Article 4 of the Charter.34 110. The Court, therefore, holds that the Respondent State violated the Applicant’s right to life protected under Article 4 of the Charter by imposing the mandatory death penalty on the Applicant. 34 Ally Rajabu and Others v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (28 November 2019) 3 AfCLR 539, §§ 104-114; Amini Juma v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application no. 024/2016, Judgment of 30 September 2021 (merits and reparations), §§ 120-131; Gozbert Henerico v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application no. 056/2016, Judgment of 10 January 2022 (merits and reparations), § 160. 25