Respondent State’s Penal Code constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of the right to life and, therefore, violates Article 4 of the Charter.29 128. In the present matter, the Court does not find any cogent reason to distinguish this matter from its previous decisions and come to a different conclusion. 129. The Court, therefore, holds that the Respondent State violated Article 4 of the Charter due to the mandatory nature of the death penalty on the Applicant, as provided for in Section 197 of its Penal Code, which constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of the right to life.30 C. Alleged violation of the right to dignity 130. The Applicant submits that the execution of the death sentence by hanging is inherently degrading. The Applicant claims that hanging is one of the acts that amount to torture and therefore hanging, in whatever manner it is carried out, infringes the dignity of a person only to constitute the violation of the right to freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment guaranteed under Article 5 of the Charter. * 131. The Respondent State did not submit on this point. 29 Ally Rajabu and Others v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (28 November 2019) 3 AfCLR 539, § 114; Amini Juma v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application no. 024/2016, Judgment of 30 September 2021 (merits and reparations), § 130; Gozbert Henerico v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application no. 056/2016, Judgment of 10 January 2022 (merits and reparations) § 150; Ghati Mwita v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application no. 012/2019, Judgment of 1 December 2022 (merits and reparations), § 80. 30 The UN Human Rights Committee has declared that “mandatory imposition of the death penalty constitutes arbitrary deprivation of life, in violation of article 6, paragraph 1 of the Covenant, in circumstances where the death penalty is imposed without regard being able to be paid to the defendant's personal circumstances or the circumstances of the particular offence”. The UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions has stated that “the death penalty should under no circumstances be mandatory by law, regardless of the charges involved” and that “The mandatory death penalty which precludes the possibility of a lesser sentence being imposed regardless of the circumstances, is inconsistent with the prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. In its resolution 2005/59, adopted on April 20 2005, the United Nations Human Rights Committee called upon all States that still maintain the death penalty “To abolish the death penalty completely and, in the meantime, to establish a moratorium on executions”. 31