10 9) The representatives also stated that they agreed with the Commission’s pleadings and requested that in the case of Joey Ramiah (supra para. 5(b)), the Court declare a gross violation of his rights and order just and appropriate compensation to his next of kin. 10) In relation to eventual reparations, the representatives of the alleged victims primarily seek commutation of the death sentences due to the "mandatory" nature of its imposition and/or the "mandatory" nature of its imposition together with other breaches of the American Convention, such as the State’s delay in bringing the alleged victims to trial and the "appalling" pre and post-conviction detention conditions to which they have been subjected. 11) As a basis for their claims, both the representatives of the alleged victims and the Commission alleged a series of acts and omissions of the State of Trinidad and Tobago, that the Court will address and assess the probative evidentiary value thereof. II JURISDICTION OF THE COURT 12) Trinidad and Tobago deposited its instrument of ratification of the American Convention on May 28, 1991. On that same day, the State recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court. 13) On May 26, 1998, Trinidad and Tobago denounced the Convention and the denunciation became effective one year later, as of May 26, 1999, pursuant to Article 78 of the Convention. The facts referred to in the present Case occurred before the State's denunciation took effect. 14) The State of Trinidad and Tobago challenged the Court's jurisdiction to hear the present Case by way of the submission of a preliminary objection in the Hilaire, Constantine et al., and Benjamin et al. Cases, which were being processed separately at that time (infra para. 37). This preliminary objection was dismissed by the Court in its judgments of September 1, 2001 (infra para. 40). 15) that: In this way, the Court held in its judgments on preliminary objections […] Trinidad and Tobago cannot prevail in the limitation included in its instrument of acceptance of the optional clause of the mandatory jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in virtue of what has been established in Article 62 of the American Convention, because this limitation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. 10 16) Notwithstanding the fact that the Inter-American Court is fully competent to hear the present Case, as it indicated in the judgments on preliminary objections 10 I/A Court H.R., Hilaire Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 1, 2001. Series C No. 80, para. 98; I/A Court H.R., Benjamin et al. Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 1, 2001. Series C No. 81, para. 89; and I/A Court H.R., Constantine et al. Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 1, 2001. Series C No. 82, para. 89.