38 130. The Court declared that the imposition of corporal punishment by flogging is in absolute contravention to the Convention. The aberrant character of such punishment has led the Court to conclude that Mr. Caesar was subjected to torture, as well as to other inhuman and degrading treatment due to the conditions of his detention (supra paras. 70, 73 and 100). 131. Furthermore, having examined the body of evidence submitted in the instant case, it is clear that Mr. Caesar’s physical and psychological problems persist and have not been properly treated (supra para. 49(32)). Consequently, as it has on other occasions,54 the Court directs the State to provide Mr. Caesar, with effect from the date of notification of this judgment, through its national health services, free of charge and for such period as may be necessary, such medical and psychological care and medication as may be recommended by appropriately qualified specialists. 132. Having found that the Corporal Punishment Act is incompatible with the terms of Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention (supra paras. 73 and 94), the Court directs the State to adopt, within a reasonable time, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to abrogate the Corporal Punishment Act. 133. The Court has held that “Section 6 of the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago of 1976 establishes that no law in effect prior to the date the Constitution entered into force may be the object of constitutional challenge under Sections 4 and 5 […]. The Mandatory Death Penalty Act was declared incompatible with the American Convention and thus any provision that establishes that Act’s immunity from challenge is likewise incompatible, by virtue of the fact that Trinidad and Tobago, as a Party to the Convention at the time that the acts took place, cannot invoke provisions of its domestic law as justification for failure to comply with its international obligations”.55 Similarly, inasmuch as it immunises the Corporal Punishment Act from challenge, the “savings clause” under Section 6 of Trinidad and Tobago's Constitution is incompatible with the Convention. Therefore, the Court orders the State to amend, within a reasonable time, Section 6 of Trinidad and Tobago's Constitution insofar as that provision denies persons effective recourse to a competent court or tribunal for remedy against violations of their human rights. 134. The Commission and the representatives also argued that the State’s penitentiary system permits prisoners to be detained in conditions that fail to respect their rights to physical and mental integrity and to humane treatment. In this regard, the Court has also found that the prison conditions to which Mr. Caesar has been subjected are contrary to Article 5(2) of the Convention and are representative of Trinidad and Tobago’s prison system (supra para. 49(22) and 100). Therefore, the Court deems it necessary to order the State, as it did in the Case of Hilaire, Constantine, Benjamin et al.56, and as a guarantee of non-repetition, to adopt, within a reasonable time, all necessary measures to bring the conditions of its prisons into compliance with the relevant international human rights norms. C) COSTS AND FEES 54 Cf. Case of Lori Berenson-Mejía, supra note 10, para. 238; Case of Plan de Sánchez Massacre. Reparations, supra note 10, paras. 106 and 107; and Case of De la Cruz Flores, supra note 16, para. 168. 55 Cf. Hilaire, Constantine, Benjamin et al. Case, supra note 7, para. 152.c). 56 Cf. Hilaire, Constantine, Benjamin et al. Case, supra note 7, para. 217.