58 principle of iura novit curia (supra para. 107), to find, on the basis of the evidence presented throughout the proceedings and especially on that given by the experts on detention conditions, that the conditions described are in fact indicative of the general conditions in Trinidad and Tobago’s prison system, and as such, constitute a violation of that Article to the detriment of all the victims in the present Case. 171) Conversely, the Court does not consider it necessary to pronounce judgment on the allegations by the Commission and the representatives of specific violations of the American Convention concerning the detention conditions of particular victims, in light of the fact that these violations are encompassed by the broad nature of those already found in the present Judgment. 172) In light of the foregoing, the Court declares that Trinidad and Tobago violated the provisions of Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1), to the detriment of Haniff Hilaire, George Constantine, Wenceslaus James, Denny Baptiste, Clarence Charles, Keiron Thomas, Anthony Garcia, Wilson Prince, Darrin Roger Thomas, Mervyn Edmund, Samuel Winchester, Martin Reid, Rodney Davis, Gangadeen Tahaloo, Noel Seepersad, Wayne Matthews, Alfred Frederick, Natasha De Leon, Vijay Mungroo, Phillip Chotalal, Naresh Boodram, Joey Ramiah, Nigel Mark, Wilberforce Bernard, Steve Mungroo, Peter Benjamin, Krishendath Seepersad, Allan Phillip, Narine Sooklal, Amir Mowlah, Mervyn Parris, and Francis Mansingh. XII VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 4(6) AND 8 IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 1(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION (Amnesty, Pardon or Commutation of Sentence) Contentions of the Commission 173) The Inter-American Commission considered that, in the case of the thirty-two victims sentenced to death in the present Case, the State did not guarantee an effective procedure for granting amnesty, pardon or commutation of sentence, thus failing to comply with the requirements of Article 4(6) of the Convention and the obligations of the State stipulated in Article 1(1). 174) The Inter-American Commission indicated that Section 88 of the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago provides for an Advisory Committee on the Power of Pardon. This committee is charged with considering and making recommendations to the Minister of National Security as to whether a person sentenced to death should benefit from the President’s discretionary power of amnesty, pardon or commutation of sentence. 175) It added that the law does not prescribe guidelines for the exercise of the Committee’s functions or the President’s discretion, and that the victims in the present Case had no right to apply for amnesty, pardon or commutation of sentence, to be informed of the date on which the Committee would consider their case, to present oral or written arguments before the Committee or to receive its decision within a reasonable time. 176) Consequently, the Commission asserted that the procedure for granting amnesty, pardon or commutation of sentence in Trinidad and Tobago does not