,LCP4807 Assignment 2 (COMPLETE ANSWERS)
Semester 2 2025 - DUE 18 September 2025; 100%
TRUSTED Complete, trusted solutions and
explanations.
MULTIPLE CHOICE,ASSURED EXCELLENCE
The Republic of Kamarara is a state with a constitution that
incorporates a Bill of Rights and has ratified the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) along with its
two Optional Protocols. The state has also committed itself to
the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(UDHR). In light of these obligations, the conviction and
mandatory death sentence imposed on Mr Mbhekwe for
murder raise significant concerns under international human
rights law. The Movement Against Death Penalty (MADP), an
international NGO, seeks to take the matter to the Human
Rights Committee (HRC) on his behalf. This opinion evaluates
the procedural requirements for bringing the case before the
HRC, assesses the merits of the case in terms of rights
violations under the ICCPR and its protocols, and outlines the
possible remedies the Committee can recommend.
From a procedural standpoint, the First Optional Protocol to
the ICCPR grants the HRC competence to receive and consider
communications from individuals claiming to be victims of
violations of the rights enshrined in the Covenant. As
Kamarara has ratified both the ICCPR and its Optional
, Protocols, individuals within its jurisdiction may approach the
Committee once domestic remedies are exhausted. In this
instance, Mr Mbhekwe’s case proceeded from trial in the High
Court to the Supreme Court of Appeal and finally to the
Constitutional Court, the highest court in the country. His
conviction and sentence were upheld at every level, meaning
there are no further domestic remedies available to him. This
satisfies the exhaustion requirement set out in Article 5(2)(b)
of the First Optional Protocol. Furthermore, there is no
indication that this matter is currently under consideration by
another international body, fulfilling the requirement under
Article 5(2)(a) that the same matter not be examined
elsewhere. With Mr Mbhekwe’s consent, MADP has standing
to act on his behalf, as recognised in HRC practice, making the
case admissible before the Committee.
Turning to the merits, the ICCPR does not categorically
prohibit the death penalty but subjects it to strict limitations
under Article 6. Specifically, the penalty may only be imposed
for “the most serious crimes” and pursuant to a fair trial that
allows for the consideration of individual circumstances. The
Human Rights Committee, in decisions such as Lubuto v
Zambia (Communication No. 390/1990) and Kennedy v
Trinidad and Tobago (Communication No. 845/1999), has
consistently held that the mandatory imposition of the death
penalty, without regard to mitigating circumstances, is
Semester 2 2025 - DUE 18 September 2025; 100%
TRUSTED Complete, trusted solutions and
explanations.
MULTIPLE CHOICE,ASSURED EXCELLENCE
The Republic of Kamarara is a state with a constitution that
incorporates a Bill of Rights and has ratified the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) along with its
two Optional Protocols. The state has also committed itself to
the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(UDHR). In light of these obligations, the conviction and
mandatory death sentence imposed on Mr Mbhekwe for
murder raise significant concerns under international human
rights law. The Movement Against Death Penalty (MADP), an
international NGO, seeks to take the matter to the Human
Rights Committee (HRC) on his behalf. This opinion evaluates
the procedural requirements for bringing the case before the
HRC, assesses the merits of the case in terms of rights
violations under the ICCPR and its protocols, and outlines the
possible remedies the Committee can recommend.
From a procedural standpoint, the First Optional Protocol to
the ICCPR grants the HRC competence to receive and consider
communications from individuals claiming to be victims of
violations of the rights enshrined in the Covenant. As
Kamarara has ratified both the ICCPR and its Optional
, Protocols, individuals within its jurisdiction may approach the
Committee once domestic remedies are exhausted. In this
instance, Mr Mbhekwe’s case proceeded from trial in the High
Court to the Supreme Court of Appeal and finally to the
Constitutional Court, the highest court in the country. His
conviction and sentence were upheld at every level, meaning
there are no further domestic remedies available to him. This
satisfies the exhaustion requirement set out in Article 5(2)(b)
of the First Optional Protocol. Furthermore, there is no
indication that this matter is currently under consideration by
another international body, fulfilling the requirement under
Article 5(2)(a) that the same matter not be examined
elsewhere. With Mr Mbhekwe’s consent, MADP has standing
to act on his behalf, as recognised in HRC practice, making the
case admissible before the Committee.
Turning to the merits, the ICCPR does not categorically
prohibit the death penalty but subjects it to strict limitations
under Article 6. Specifically, the penalty may only be imposed
for “the most serious crimes” and pursuant to a fair trial that
allows for the consideration of individual circumstances. The
Human Rights Committee, in decisions such as Lubuto v
Zambia (Communication No. 390/1990) and Kennedy v
Trinidad and Tobago (Communication No. 845/1999), has
consistently held that the mandatory imposition of the death
penalty, without regard to mitigating circumstances, is
