84. The Court recalls the Applicant’s first contention, where she asserts that the Respondent State did not consider that sentencing a mentally ill person to death violates Article 5 of the Charter. The Court finds that the issue for determination is rather whether the mandatory death penalty pronounced following the proceedings complies with the guarantees of the right to a fair trial, especially Article 7(1) of the Charter which provides that: “[e]very individual shall have the right to have his cause heard.”26 85. In this regard, the Court notes that there is nothing on record to indicate that the Applicant or her representatives raised her mental health status, at the preliminary hearing, during the trial proceedings or as a ground of appeal before the Court of Appeal. The Court also notes that the Applicant did not submit that it was apparent to the trial court that she was mentally incompetent during her trial. In the absence of probative proof of the Applicant’s mental health at the time of her trial before the High Court, the Court has no basis, relating to the Applicant’s mental health, to fault the findings of the trial court.27 In the circumstances, the plea that the Respondent State sentenced a person suffering from mental illness to death is merely an argument invoked after the sentence had been passed. In view of the preceding, the Court finds that the Respondent State did not violate Article 7(1)(d) of the Charter. 86. In relation to the second and third contentions raised by the Applicant, the Court notes that the Applicant challenges the implementation of the death penalty by hanging. The Court recalls that it has previously held in Ally Rajabu and Others v. Tanzania that, the implementation of the death penalty by hanging, where such a penalty is permitted, is “inherently degrading” and “encroaches upon dignity in respect of the prohibition of […] cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment”.28 The Court, therefore, finds that 26 Gozbert Henerico v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), § 156. Cf. Communication No. 684/1996, RS v. Trinidad and Tobago (Human Rights Committee), § 7.2 (2 April 2022). 28 Ally Rajabu and others v. Tanzania, (merits and reparations), §§ 119 -120 and Amini Juma v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), § 36. 27 25