7 Court does not infringe, create or abolish any existing rights or duties of any private citizen. The State claims that this reservation would render null and void any decision of the Court which violates the pertinent sections of its Constitution. 6. The Court summarizes the observations of the Commission of July 2, July 17, and July 30, 1998, in the above matters as follows: a. As there are only five to seven days between the issuance and reading of a Warrant of Execution and an execution, such a short timeframe would impede the Court’s ability to issue effective provisional measures; b. the Commission’s competence under Article 41 is broader than the State alleges, and includes authority to accept individual petitions for the express purpose of determining if human rights have been violated by a State; c. Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties establishes the principle of pacta sunt servanda, which requires states to comply domestically with their international obligations and to act in good faith; moreover, the State’s timeframes, which the Commission considers to be mere policy, are inconsistent with the timeframes established by the Statutes and Rules of Procedure of the Commission and the United Nations Human Rights Committee; d. the petitions before the Commission in these cases allege human rights violations; and e. the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, as interpreted in Advisory Opinions OC-13 and OC-14 of this Court, requires States to create the necessary machinery to meet their international obligations. 7. The statements of the Commission during the public hearing on August 28, 1998, which demonstrated the urgency of the situations of the alleged victims, all of whom are still under imminent sentence of death and, therefore, at continued risk of irreparable damage. 8. The refusal of the State to appear at the public hearing held by the Court on August 28, 1998. CONSIDERING: 1. That Trinidad and Tobago has been a State Party to the American Convention since May 28, 1991, and that it accepted the jurisdiction of the Court on the same day. 2. That Article 63(2) provides: [i]n cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court shall adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent in matters it has under consideration. With respect to a case not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of the Commission. 3. That pursuant to Article 25 (1) of the Rules of Procedure: [a]t any stage of the proceedings involving cases of extreme gravity and urgency and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court may, at the request