African Court orders Tanzania to annual death sentence imposed on Ladislaus Chalula

The African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights has ordered the United Republic of Tanzania (Respondent State) to annul the death sentence imposed on Ladislaus Chalula (Applicant) and remove him from death row.

In a ruling delivered in the case of Ladislaus Chalula v. the United Republic of Tanzania, the African Court instructed the Respondent State to hold a sentencing hearing for the Applicant that does not mandate the death penalty and allows the judge discretion in determining the sentence.

Additionally, the Court ordered the judgment to be published within three months of notification and mandated the Respondent State to submit a report on the measures taken to implement the Court's orders within six months of the judgment’s notification. However, the Court decided that each party should bear its own costs.

Regarding the Applicant's request for release, the Court found that the nature of the violations in this case did not present circumstances that would make continued detention a denial of justice or an arbitrary decision. The Court also concluded that the Applicant did not provide sufficient grounds for exceptional circumstances that would warrant an order for his release. As a result, the Court dismissed the Applicant’s request to quash his conviction and set him free.

In line with the applicable provisions of the Protocol and Rules of Court, Judge Rafaâ Ben Achour delivered a separate opinion, while Judges Blaise Tchikaya and Dumisa B. Ntsebeza issued declarations.

The facts of the case show that Ladislaus Chalula, a Tanzanian national, was convicted of murder and sentenced to death by the High Court of Tanzania in Sumbawanga on March 31, 1991. His appeal to the Mbeya Court of Appeal was dismissed on June 10, 1999. In his application to the African Court, Chalula alleged violations of his rights during the domestic court proceedings and sought reparations for the harm he suffered.

The Respondent State objected to the African Court's jurisdiction, arguing that the application sought a review of matters already decided by domestic courts. The Court, however, affirmed its jurisdiction, stating that it was not acting as an appellate court but had the authority to quash the conviction and sentence under the right conditions. The Court dismissed the Respondent’s objection to the African Court’s jurisdiction over the conviction and sentence.

The Respondent State also raised an objection to the Court's temporal jurisdiction, asserting that the alleged violations occurred outside the period when Tanzania was a party to the Charter. The Court rejected this objection, noting that the alleged violations continued after Tanzania became a party to the Protocol. As such, the Court found that it had jurisdiction to hear the case.

On the issue of admissibility, the Respondent argued that the Applicant had not exhausted all domestic remedies and had filed the application too late. The Court disagreed, ruling that the Applicant had exhausted local remedies by bringing his case to the Court of Appeal and that the application had been filed within a reasonable time, given his isolation on death row.

The African Court then examined the alleged violations of the Applicant’s rights under the African Charter. It found no evidence of discrimination in the domestic courts, dismissing the Applicant's claim under Article 2. With regard to the alleged violation of the Applicant's right to equality before the law (Article 3), the Court found no supporting evidence and rejected the claim.

On the right to life (Article 4), the Court reaffirmed its established jurisprudence that the mandatory death penalty is a violation of the right to life. It found that the Respondent State violated the Applicant’s right to life by imposing a mandatory death sentence. The Court also noted that while the Applicant did not explicitly raise a violation of his dignity, the use of hanging as a method of execution constitutes a violation of dignity. Thus, the Court found that the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to dignity under Article 5 of the Charter.

The Court found no manifest errors in the assessment of evidence by the domestic courts and ruled that there was no violation of the Applicant’s right to a fair trial.

Regarding reparations, the Applicant sought damages for the violations he suffered, the quashing of his conviction, and his release. The Respondent State requested that the application be dismissed. The Court awarded the Applicant 300,000 Tanzanian shillings as compensation for the moral prejudice caused by the violations.

In a significant ruling, the African Court annulled the Applicant's death sentence and ordered his removal from death row, marking a critical stance against the mandatory death penalty.