59 guarantee offenders an effective opportunity to participate in the process, and therefore does not constitute an adequate guarantee in accordance with Article 4(6) of the American Convention. 177) The Commission stated that according to recent jurisprudence of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, 142 individual mercy petitions based on the constitution may be subject to judicial review and that the prerogative of mercy must be exercised fairly and adequately. It likewise indicated that these conclusions appear to apply to all jurisdictions where a prerogative of mercy exists for death penalty cases, including Trinidad and Tobago. 178) The Commission finally argued that in order to provide the offenders with an effective opportunity to exercise this right, the State must establish and offer a procedure through which offenders can formulate and present arguments in support of their petitions. The Commission stated that in the absence of these minimum protections and procedures, Article 4(6) of the Convention is rendered meaningless, having no effective means by which it may be exercised. Contentions of the Representatives of the Alleged Victims 179) The representatives claimed that the prerogative of mercy in itself is not enough to comply with the totality of requirements established in Articles 4(1), 4(2), 5(1), 5(2) and 8 of the American Convention, due to the fact that the Advisory Committee on the Power of Pardon is not a judicial but an executive body without any pre-established guidelines for the exercise of the prerogative of mercy. The Committee meets and advises the Minister of National Security in secret and there is no mechanism to ensure that offenders receive a reasoned explanation for a mercy decision, as the Minister is free to disregard any recommendations made by the Committee. 180) They added that, in light of the above, under the domestic law applied to all the persons in this case, there were no guidelines for the granting of amnesty, pardon or commutation of sentence, there was no right to present written or oral arguments, and the proceedings were marked by a general lack of available information, such that none of the victims had a right to a fair hearing before the Advisory Committee on the Power of Pardon. 181) The representatives argued that each victim should be notified of the date on which the Committee will consider their case, should be provided with the materials to be presented before the Committee, should have a right to present arguments at an oral hearing, and should be able to submit for the Committee’s consideration the findings and recommendations of international bodies. While a petition of this nature is pending, the victim ought not to be executed. 182) They considered that in order to make a reliable determination as to what crimes are "the most serious," the Advisory Committee should have access to all the relevant mitigating evidence in order that the amnesty, pardon or commutation procedures are consistent with the requirements of Article 4(2) of the Convention. 142 Cf. Neville Lewis et al. v. Attorney General of Jamaica. Judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of September 12, 2000.