Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Mbushuu (Alias Dominic Mnyaroje) & Anor V Republic (1995) ICHRL 5 (30 January 1995)

    Uploaded by

    Robert Walusimbi
    The appellants were convicted of murder but given life imprisonment instead of the death penalty by the trial judge. On appeal, their convictions were quashed for lack of evidence but the court also considered the respondent's appeal of the sentences. The court held that the death penalty was constitutional under Tanzania's constitution. It found that the right to life and prohibition of cruel punishment must be interpreted based on current conditions. While the death penalty was inherently cruel, it could be allowed under the constitution to protect public interest and achieved deterrence in Tanzanian society given existing legal safeguards.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Mbushuu (Alias Dominic Mnyaroje) & Anor V Republic (1995) ICHRL 5 (30 January 1995)

    Uploaded by

    Robert Walusimbi
    1K views1 page
    The appellants were convicted of murder but given life imprisonment instead of the death penalty by the trial judge. On appeal, their convictions were quashed for lack of evidence but the court also considered the respondent's appeal of the sentences. The court held that the death penalty was constitutional under Tanzania's constitution. It found that the right to life and prohibition of cruel punishment must be interpreted based on current conditions. While the death penalty was inherently cruel, it could be allowed under the constitution to protect public interest and achieved deterrence in Tanzanian society given existing legal safeguards.

    Original Description:

    mbushuu

    Original Title

    hrdp-Mbushuu

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The appellants were convicted of murder but given life imprisonment instead of the death penalty by the trial judge. On appeal, their convictions were quashed for lack of evidence but the court also considered the respondent's appeal of the sentences. The court held that the death penalty was constitutional under Tanzania's constitution. It found that the right to life and prohibition of cruel punishment must be interpreted based on current conditions. While the death penalty was inherently cruel, it could be allowed under the constitution to protect public interest and achieved deterrence in Tanzanian society given existing legal safeguards.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    1K views1 page

    Mbushuu (Alias Dominic Mnyaroje) & Anor V Republic (1995) ICHRL 5 (30 January 1995)

    Uploaded by

    Robert Walusimbi
    The appellants were convicted of murder but given life imprisonment instead of the death penalty by the trial judge. On appeal, their convictions were quashed for lack of evidence but the court also considered the respondent's appeal of the sentences. The court held that the death penalty was constitutional under Tanzania's constitution. It found that the right to life and prohibition of cruel punishment must be interpreted based on current conditions. While the death penalty was inherently cruel, it could be allowed under the constitution to protect public interest and achieved deterrence in Tanzanian society given existing legal safeguards.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Mbushuu (alias Dominic Mnyaroje) & Anor v Republic [1995] ICHRL 5 (30

    January 1995)
    Tanzania
    [1995] 1 LRC 335, [1996] 2 CHRLD 160; [1995] TLR 97
    For the Appellants: Mr Rweyongeza, Advocate
    For the Respondent: Miss Korosso, State Attorney
    The appellants were convicted of murder but the trial judge held that the death
    penalty prescribed by the Penal Code was unconstitutional and sentenced them to
    life imprisonment. Their convictions were quashed on appeal for lack of proper
    identification evidence but the Court also considered the respondents appeal against
    the sentences. In declaring the death penalty constitutional, it was held that:
    1. The right to life provision in the Constitution (Art 14) expressly allows for
    situations where it will be denied by the due process of law.
    2. The constitutional right to dignity in the execution of a punishment and the
    prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading punishment (Art 13(6)(d) and
    (e)) must be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions (Trop v Dulles
    356 US 86 (1957) (SC) and Tyrer v United Kingdom (1978) 2 EHRR 1
    (ECtHR) considered).
    3. The death penalty, and hanging in particular, is inherently inhuman, cruel and
    degrading (Furman v Georgia 408 US 238 (1972) followed).
    4. The death penalty provision could be saved by Art 30(2) of the Constitution,
    which allows a law to derogate or limit an individuals basic rights on public
    interest grounds (Daudi Pete v A-G (Cr App No 28 of 1990, unreported) and
    Kukutia Ole Pumbun v A-G [no citation] applied).
    5. The existence of safeguards in criminal law and procedure means that the
    death penalty is not arbitrary. Having regard to the context of Tanzanian
    society, the death penalty is also proportional since it is presently deemed to
    be a reasonably necessary deterrent to achieve the legitimate object of
    protecting the right to life of other members of society.

    You might also like