31 Caesar's lawyers that his attempt to pursue a final appeal before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was unlikely to succeed. This period represents an unreasonable delay that far exceeds the delay in previous cases in which the Court has found violations of Article 8.1 of the Convention. The State has not provided any explanation for this delay, nor do any facts appear from the record that might account for such delay; c) Section 6 of Trinidad and Tobago’s Constitution precludes any appeal against the constitutionality of the Corporal Punishment Act; d) the State is responsible for violating Mr. Caesar’s right to judicial protection under Article 25 of the Convention, as well as its obligations under Article 2 of the Convention, in connection with Articles 7(5) and 8(1) of the Convention, by failing to guarantee, under its domestic law, the right to be tried within a reasonable time; e) the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago does not include among its prescribed fundamental rights and freedoms the right to a trial within a reasonable time, fact that has been confirmed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; and f) although Mr. Caesar was released by the State prior to his trial and therefore did not need to invoke Article 7(5) of the Convention, the evidence indicates that the State’s failure to provide for the right to be tried within a reasonable time under Article 8(1) also necessarily implies, as a general proposition, failure to protect the corresponding right under Article 7(5) of the Convention. Arguments of the representatives 102. The representatives of the alleged victim, with respect to Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, stated that: a) the State violated Article 8 of the Convention by failing to provide Mr. Caesar with a trial and appeal proceedings within a reasonable time; b) the State violated Article 25 of the Convention, as it failed to provide Mr. Caesar with a means of effective domestic recourse; c) Mr. Caesar was subjected to a total delay of 12 years between his initial arrest and his attempt to pursue an appeal before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; d) both the sentence itself and the manner in which it was carried out are inconsistent with and violate the right enshrined under Section 4(a) and Section 5(2)(b) of Trinidad and Tobago’s Constitution. However, the violations of the rights enshrined in said Sections, are not capable of remedy in domestic courts because of the “savings clause” in Section 6(1) of the Constitution. Nevertheless, States cannot evade their obligations under human rights treaties by reliance upon “savings clauses” that have the effect of undermining or defeating domestic implementation of those obligations; and e) The State violated Article 2 of the Convention by failing to give domestic legal effect to the rights protected under Article 8 of the Convention. The Court’s assesment 103. Article 8(1) of the American Convention provides for the right to a fair trial as follows: