156. The Court notes that the Respondent State violated the Applicant’s right to life, right to dignity and right to a fair trial on account of which she suffered moral prejudice. Accordingly, the Applicant is entitled to moral damages. 157. The Court also notes that the disruption of Applicant’s life plan is related to her incarceration. However, since the Court has not found the Applicant’s incarceration to be unlawful, it can therefore not award any reparations for harm suffered. 158. The Court, however, recalls that it has found the mandatory nature of the death penalty constitutes a violation of Articles 4 and 5 of the Charter and that the delayed commencement of the Applicant’s trial infringed Article 7(1)(d) of the Charter. It thus reiterates its case-law to the effect that, in respect of human rights violations, reparations for moral prejudice are awarded in equity on the basis of the Court’s discretion. 159. The Court recalls that the High Court sentenced the Applicant to death by hanging on 19 September 2011 and the sentence was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 11 March 2013. This Court finds that the Applicant suffered prejudice as from the date of her sentencing. The uncertainty of waiting for both the outcome of the appeal and thereafter the possible execution only added to the psychological tension experienced by the Applicant. The Applicant’s prejudice was also exacerbated by the delay she endured before the commencement of her trial. In the circumstances it is beyond doubt that the Applicant has suffered trauma. 160. ln view of the above, the Court finds that the Applicant has endured moral and psychological suffering and decides to grant her moral damages in the sum of Tanzanian Shillings Seven Million (TZS 7,000,000). B. Non-pecuniary reparations 161. The Applicant prays the Court to quash her sentence and set her free. Noting that the Applicant also makes prayers in relation to the Respondent 45