Arusha, Tanzania Website: www.african-court.org Telephone: +255-272-510-510 JUDGMENT SUMMARY Although other conditions of admissibility were not challenged by the Respondent State, the Court nonetheless had to ensure that they had been fulfilled. In this connection, the Court held that the Applicants had been identified by name in fulfilment of Rule 50(2)(a) of the Rules. It also held that the allegations by the Applicants sought to protect their rights in line with Article 3(h) on the objectives of the Constitutive Act of the African Union, and thus the Application complied with Rule 50(2)(b) of the Rules. Furthermore, the Court found that the language used in the Applications was not disparaging or insulting to the Respondent State or its institutions, in fulfilment of Rule 50(2)(c) of the Rules. The Applications were, also not based exclusively on news disseminated through mass media, in fulfilment of Rule 50(2)(d) of the Rules. In addition, the Court held that the Applications which were filed four months and three days after the Court of Appeal rendered its decision on their appeal, on 4 April 2019, were filed within a manifestly reasonable time in accordance with Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules. The Court was also satisfied that the Applications did not raise allegations already settled before another international tribunal. Resultantly, the Court declared the Application admissible. On the merits of the case, the Court considered whether the Respondent State had violated the Applicants’ rights under Articles 4, 5, 7(1)(c), 7(1)(d) and 7(1) of the Charter, by its conduct in the assessment of evidence and the sentencing the Applicants to death. The Applicants argued that the mandatory imposition of the death penalty negates judicial discretion to consider the circumstances of the accused and the offence. The Court held that this constitutes a violation, as it denies due process by removing the judicial officer’s ability to exercise such discretion. It further found that the subsequent commutation to life imprisonment did not cure the violation, since the Applicants had already been subjected to the mandatory death sentence and had spent time on death row prior to its commutation. 3