9 which reforms the Offences Against the Person Act but has yet to come into force. 22 According to the terms of this amendment, there would be three categories of murder, namely: capital murder or murder 1, murder 2, and murder 3. The first comprises circumstances of a greater severity: aggravated murder with elements that usually bring, as it has been observed in comparative law, the maximum penalty and which class of crime is punished by the death; murder of a lesser degree, having other characteristics, punished by life imprisonment, and culpable homicide. 23 This kind of regulation already appears in the corresponding laws of other States in the region, which categorize in detail diverse theories in which life may be taken. 24 15. Having examined the incompatibility that exists between the criminal legislation in Trinidad and Tobago and Article 4(2) of the Pact of San José, it is fitting to study the disparity between that legislation and Article 4(1), which prohibits the "arbitrary" deprivation of life. For this purpose it is pertinent to recapture in a broad sense the concept of arbitrariness - not only existing, as the circumstances now under consideration will show, in the context of extra-judicial executions, while these may be its most flagrant manifestation - and project it onto the issue with which we are now concerned. The Court has previously understood that "[t]he expression 'arbitrarily' excludes, as is obvious, the legal proceedings applicable in those countries that still maintain the death penalty." 25 Nevertheless, it is necessary to delimit the scope of such a broad affirmation that may extend to situations which merit clarification. Evidently, in the terms of the Convention, death imposed or inflicted on a person in conformance with norms of substance and form adjusted to those principles which must inform them, and by means of a trial before a competent authority in accordance with due process guarantees, may not be classified as arbitrary. This defence appears inadequate however, when the above has not occurred, even though the case does not involve an extra-judicial execution or the excessive use of force at the margins of judicial orders. 16. If we limited ourselves to superficially considering only, the fact that the death penalty provided for in law and applied to concrete cases comes from a judgment issued by a competent tribunal, the classification of the case at bar as arbitrary might seem excessive. However, this charge is justified if certain statements approved before the Inter-American Court and articulated in the judgment issued 22 This reform was approved by the House of Representatives on October 13, 2000 and by the Senate on the 24th of the same month and year, and will come into force when the President of the Republic promulgates it. 23 Within the qualifying element that aggravate the murder and intensify the sentence, are: that the victim was part of the security forces, a prison or judicial official; that the life taken was that of a participant as witness or juror in a criminal proceeding; that the crime was committed using bombs or explosives; that the crime is carried out in the expectation of reward; that the brutality in the commission of the crime causes an exceptional loss; that the murder is committed with motives related to race, religion, nationality or national origin, etc. (Sections 4D and following) 24 Cf., in what refers to Jamaica, the Act to amend the Offences Against the Person Act (October 14, 1992), which distinguishes between capital murder, punishable by death, and non-capital murder, punishable by life in prison. 25 74. Corte I.D.H., Caso Neira Alegría y otros. Sentencia de 19 de enero de 1995. Serie C No. 20, para.