48 121) The Commission argued in general terms that each one of these cases resulted in an unjustified delay by virtue of the fact that no case was decided in less than four years from the date of arrest to the appellate decision; it added that some of the victims were detained in prison awaiting trial for nearly seven years and consequently experienced delays of approximately twelve years between their arrest and final appeal (supra para. 120). 122) The Commission indicated that in cases of unacceptable delay, the burden of proof falls on the State to justify the delay, and that Trinidad and Tobago failed to adduce any evidence whatsoever during the proceedings before the Court. 123) Likewise, the Commission stated that Section 4 of the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago guarantees the right to a fair trial, but not to a speedy trial or a trial within a reasonable period of time. Consequently, a prolonged pre-trial delay does not in itself violate the Constitution, although it must be taken into account by the judge in deciding whether the delay may adversely affect the Court’s capacity to arrive at a decision consonant with the facts of the case. 124) The delays caused by Trinidad and Tobago throughout the judicial proceedings of the twenty-four mentioned victims (supra para. 120) constitute a violation of the right to trial within a reasonable time, guaranteed in Articles 7(5) and 8(1) of the American Convention. Such delays likewise violate Article 2 since the State did not adopt the necessary measures in its domestic law to make effective the guarantees protected in these provisions. 125) The Commission contended that, in relation to the criminal proceedings of eleven victims, 123 Trinidad and Tobago is responsible for the violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1), by reason of its failure to effectively provide legal aid to permit accused persons to bring constitutional motions before the domestic tribunals. 124 126) In this regard, the Commission indicated that although free legal representation should be available to all persons for the presentation of constitutional motions in Trinidad and Tobago, in practice it is rarely granted to those sentenced to death. Furthermore, there is a practical obstacle to the presentation of these motions, namely that the execution orders are read a few days before they are to be carried out, which makes the introduction of constitutional motions considerably more difficult. 127) The Commission claimed that, in light of Articles 8, 25 and 1(1) of the Convention, the State is obligated to effectively provide legal representation for all persons that wish to present a constitutional motion. In cases of persons sentenced to death, this obligation becomes even more crucial. 123 Supra note 8. 124 The Commission stated that judicial review of criminal sentences in Trinidad and Tobago may take two forms: a criminal appeal of the sentence or a constitutional motion pursuant to Section 14 of the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. For both procedures, the appeal proceeds from the trial court, to the High Court of Trinidad and Tobago, to the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago, and then in criminal cases that are granted special leave to appeal, to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London.