the urgency of having the impugned provision removed from the Respondent State’s Penal Code. In the circumstances, the Court decides to set the time for implementation at six (6) months from the date of the present judgment. 179. As regards reporting, the Court considers that this is required as a matter of judicial practice. With particular emphasis on timeframe, the Court notes that time allocated in judgments pending implementation have cumulatively reached three (3) years. For the same reasons as expounded while examining the orders for both publication and implementation, a report should be provided within a period that is shorter than that set out in individual judgments. The Court considers that the appropriate time should, therefore, be six (6) months in the circumstances. 180. The Court also notes that the Respondent State has not implemented the orders in any of the earlier referred to cases where it was ordered to repeal the mandatory death penalty and the deadlines that the Court set have since lapsed. In view of this fact, the Court still considers that the orders are warranted both as an individual protective measure, and a general restatement of the obligation and urgency behoving on the Respondent State to scrap the mandatory death penalty and provide alternatives thereto. IX. COSTS 181. None of the Parties made submissions on costs. *** 182. According to Rule 32(2) of the Rules, “[u]nless otherwise decided by the Court, each party shall bear its own costs, if any.” 50