44 which a court has the power and the duty to apply the juridical provisions relevant to a proceeding, even when the parties do not expressly invoke them." 112 108) In light of these facts, the Court concludes that because the Offences Against the Person Act submits all persons charged with murder to a judicial process in which the individual circumstances of the accused and the crime are not considered, the aforementioned Act violates the prohibition against the arbitrary deprivation of life, in contravention of Article 4(1) and 4(2) of the Convention. 109) Therefore, the Court considers that Trinidad and Tobago has violated Article 4(1) and 4(2) in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the Convention, 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. * * * 110) Similarly, even though the Commission did not specifically allege a violation of Article 2 in relation to Article 4 of the American Convention, the issue may still be examined by the Tribunal, by virtue of the established general legal principle of iura novit curia (supra para. 107). 113 111) Article 2 of the American Convention provides that [w]here the exercise of any of the rights or freedoms referred to in Article 1 is not already ensured by legislative or other provisions, the States Parties undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of this Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or freedoms. 112) Based on the above provision, the Court has consistently held that the American Convention establishes the general obligation of States Parties to bring their domestic law into compliance with the norms of the Convention, in order to guarantee the rights set out therein. The provisions of domestic law that are adopted must be effective (principle of effet utile). That is to say that the State has the obligation to adopt and to integrate into its domestic legal system such measures as are necessary to allow the provisions of the Convention to be effectively complied with and put into actual practice. 114 112 I/A Court H.R., Godínez Cruz Case, supra note 68, para. Ugarte Case., supra note 109, para. 76; and I/A Court H.R., Castillo 30, 1999, supra note 66, para. 166. 113 I/A Court H.R., Godínez Cruz Case, supra note 68, para. Ugarte Case., supra note 109, para. 76; and I/A Court H.R., Castillo 30, 1999, supra note 66, para. 166. 172. Cf. I/A Court H.R., Durand and Petruzzi et al. Case. Judgment of May 172. Cf. I/A Court H.R., Durand and Petruzzi et al. Case. Judgment of May 114 Cf. I/A Court H.R., "The Last Temptation of Christ" Case (Olmedo Bustos et al.). Judgment of February 5, 2001. Series C No. 73, para. 87.