7. The complaint alleges that the following articles of the American Convention were violated by the State of Trinidad and Tobago, to the detriment of the petitioner: articles 4, 5, 8, 24 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Specifically, the petitioner alleges serious violations as regards the right to a fair trial in a capital case. He alleges that since the prosecution’s case was based on the eye witness testimony of one witness, that the failure of the prosecution to disclose the police statement of that witness to the defense made it impossible for the latter to impeach the witness for inconsistencies. In addition, the petitioner alleges that the imposition of the mandatory death sentence violates Articles 4, 5 and 24 of the Convention. The petitioner also alleges that his prison conditions violate international standards. He also alleges that he did not have a fair trial and the fact that he cannot have a hearing on the question of whether the death penalty should be either imposed or carried out. B. Position of the State 8. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, at the request of the Government, held a meeting on February 20, 1998, during its ninety-eighth period of sessions, with Mr. Ralph Maraj, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago and Mr. Ramesh L. Maharaj, the Attorney General of that State. In his statement, the Attorney General argued that the "Commission has no power to challenge the implementation of a sentence of death imposed by a court of competent jurisdiction in Trinidad and Tobago." The argument of the State is as follows: Under the Convention, the Commission has the power to make recommendations to the State Party, but in so far as those recommendations relate to a sentence imposed by the courts of the State Party it would be acting ultra vires if it attempted to alter by its recommendations the domestic law of the State in respect of sentencing. The Commission therefore has no power to challenge the implementation of a sentence of death imposed by a court of competent jurisdiction in Trinidad and Tobago. The Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago mandates all arms of the State, including the judicial arm, to uphold the law of Trinidad and Tobago. The State of Trinidad and Tobago therefore has a mandatory obligation to ensure that its Constitution and laws are not undermined, subverted or frustrated in their operation. It was for this reason that the Government of Trinidad and Tobago, by its reservation entered when accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the Inter American Court of Human Rights, stated that the Court can only have jurisdiction to the extent that it is consistent with the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago. The Commission therefore does not have jurisdiction either by its acts or omissions to prevent in any way a sentence, authorized by the Constitution and laws of Trinidad and Tobago and pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction, from being carried into effect. It is therefore open for the Government of Trinidad and Tobago, whilst a petition is pending before the Commission, to carry out the sentence of death once the time stipulated in accordance with the Constitution and laws of Trinidad and Tobago has expired. The Commission may recommend the award of compensation to a victim. It may recommend that the State Party correct those matters, which gave rise to a substantive breach so that others do not suffer the same violation in future. However it is submitted that the Commission, either directly or by its recommendation, has no power to alter the lawful sentence imposed by a court of a State Party. (Emphasis added). 9. In the response to the petition, the State informed the Commission that the "Instructions Relating to Applications to the International Human Rights Bodies by or on Behalf of Persons under Sentence of Death published by the Government of Trinidad and Tobago on 4 June 1998, apply to the communication of Martin Reid. Case No. 12.052." In addition, the State pointed out that: . . . in order for any recommendation by the Commission to be considered by the Minister of National Security when advising his Excellency the President of the exercise of the prerogative of pardon, the Government of Trinidad and Tobago respectfully requests the Commission to submit its determination in respect of this communication by 14 April 1999. Unlike in other legal systems where the prerogative of pardon is considered part of the domestic process, in Trinidad and Tobago the international instance is used to inform the domestic process. IV. A. ANALYSIS Competence 10. Trinidad and Tobago is a State party to the American Convention, having ratified the treaty on May 28, 1991. The petition alleges violations of human rights set forth in the Convention which the Commission is competent to review. B. Requisites for the admissibility of the petition a. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 2