arbitrary, it is reasonably necessary and is imposed after due process of the law, and, therefore, it is not unconstitutional. 122. The Respondent State further avers that its Court of Appeal has commented on the limitation of individual rights. In the case DPP v. Daudi Pete [1993] TLR 22, the Court of Appeal held that because of the co-existence between “the basic rights of the individual and the collective rights of society” it is not abnormal to find limitations on the rights of the individual in every society. 123. The Respondent State further submits that over the past twenty years, it has exercised a de facto moratorium on the death penalty. 124. The Respondent State further argues that the contention over the death sentence has formally been decided by its Court of Appeal and that its position is clear that, it is lawful, procedural, constitutional and necessary. The Respondent State maintains, therefore, that this Court would be devoid of jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. *** 125. Article 4 of the Charter provides that: “[h]uman beings are inviolable. Every human being shall be entitled to respect for his life and the integrity of his person. No one may be arbitrarily deprived of this right”. 126. The Court considers that the only issue for it to determine in the present matter is whether the mandatory imposition of the death penalty constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of the right to life. 127. The Court recalls its well-established jurisprudence that the mandatory imposition of the death penalty as provided for in Section 197 of the 30